


5£I131ilfej 






^>n 



# LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. JI 










UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. ^ 



zsraoa 



arsLJ 



^3SSCS51D8: 






e^^ffX^JmJ^^^^^^ 






.;>I£2SL. 



J52S2>. 






ms&M 



A DEBATE 



ON THE 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION: 



HELD IN THE SYCAMORE-STREET MEETING HOUSE, CINCINNATI, 
FROM THE 13th TO THE 21st OF JANUARY, 1837. 



BETWEEN 

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, 

OF BETHANY, VIRGINIA, 

AND THE 

RT. REV. JOHN B. PURCELL, 

BISHOP OF CINCINNATI. 
TAKEN DOWN BY REPORTERS, AND REVISED BY THE PARTIES, 



" Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits : for many false prophets 
have gone out into the wr.rld." 

" If he will not hear the churchy let him be to thee as the heathen and 
the publican.'" — Jesus Christ. 



CINCINNATI : 
STEREOTYPED & PUBLISHED BY J. A. JAMES & Co. 

1837. 






Entered According to Act of Congress, in the year 1837, 

Br J. A. JAMES AND CO., 

in the Clerk's Office for the District Court of Ohio. 



We the undersigned, having sold and conveyed to J. A. James and Co., of 
Cincinnati, for a certain sum per copy, (to be paid by them to us, or to our or- 
der, and to be appropriated to two public charitable institutions, as agreed on 
between ourselves,) for all that shall be printed; the exclusive right of printing 
and publishing the DEBATE on the ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION, held in 
the Sycamore Street Meeting House, Cincinnati, from the 13th to the 21st. of 
January 1837, inclusive, between ourselves, and taken down by Reporters, em- 
ployed by the said J. A. James & Co., and revised, corrected, and approved by 
us, do hereby make known that the edition or editions published by J. A. James 
& Co., or by their authority, and revised by us, must be considered the only cor- 
rect and authorized editions of said DEBATE. 

Cincinnati, Feb. 1st. 1837. f JOHN B. PURCELL, 

Bp. Cin, 
A. CAMPBELL. 



TO THE PUBLIC. 



The Publishers being well aware of the importance of obtain- 
ng a full and correct report of this discussion, have spared no 
pains nor expense to effect this object. 

They employed two gentlemen well qualified as reporters. 

From the joint notes of these, they furnished each of the 
parties with a copy of his part of the report for revision, with 
the express understanding, that nothing should be added or sub- 
tracted to make their speeches different from what they were 
when originally delivered. 

After being put in type, a proof sheet of all was sent to 
each, for his last corrections. 

Believing, that by this means, the desideratum sought, has 
been obtained, this work, is now commended to an enquiring, 
intelligent, and reading community. 

THE PUBLISHERS. 

Cincinnati, Feb. 1837. 



INTRODUCTION, 



To introduce the following report to the reader, we lay be- 
fore him the correspondence of the parties, which immediately 
preceded the debate. 

LETTER FROM MR. CAMPBELL. 

Cincinnati, Jan. 11th, 1837. 

Bishop Pur cell — Respected Sir: 

At two o'clock this morning, after a tedious and perilous journey of 
ten days, I safely arrived in this city. The river having become innaviga- 
ble in consequence of the ice, I was compelled to leave it and take to the 
woods, about two hundred miles above. By a zigzag course which car- 
ried me to Chillicothe and Columbus, sometimes on foot, sometimes on a 
sleigh, and finally by the mail stage, I accomplished a land tour of two 
hundred and forty miles, equal to the whole distance from Wheeling to 
Cincinnati. 

After this my travel's history, I proceed to state, that it was with pleas- 
ure I received either from you or some of my friends, a copy of the Daily 
Gazette, on the 22d ult. intimating your fixed purpose of meeting me in a 
public discussion of my propositions, or of the points at issue between Ro- 
man Catholics and Protestants. This, together with your former declara- 
tions in favor of full and free discussion, is not only in good keeping with 
the spirit of the age, and the genius of our institutions, but fully indicative 
of a becoming confidence and sincerity in your own cause. This frank and 
manly course, permit me to add, greatly heightens my esteem for you. 

Now, sir, that I am on the premises, I take the earliest opportunity of 
informing you of my arrival, and of requesting you to name the time and 
place in which it may be most convenient for you to meet me for the pur- 
pose of arranging the preliminaries. It has occurred to me, that it would 
be useful and commendable to have an authentic copy of our discussion, 
signed by our own hands, and published with our consent ; and that it 
might have all the authority and credit which we could give it, it would be 

A 2 V 



VI INTRODUCTION. 

expedient to sell to some of the publishers in this city, the copyright, and 
let them employ a stenographer or stenographers to report faithfully the 
whole matter. 

It will also secure for such a work a more extensive reading, and conse- 
quently a wider range of usefulness, and I have no doubt, be most accep- 
table to our feelings, and every way reputable, to devote the profits, or the 
proceeds of the copyright, to some benevolent institution, on which we 
may both agree ; or in case of a difference on a fitting institution, that we 
select each an object to which we can most conscientiously assign all the 
profits of such publication. 

In order to these ends, it will be necessary, that we timously arrange all 
the preliminaries, and as many persons are now in waiting, I trust it may 
be every way practicable, during the day, to come to a full understanding 
on the whole premises. 

Very respectfully, 

Your ob't. serv't. 

A. CAMPBELL. 



BISHOP PURCELL'S REPLY. 

Cincinnati, 11th January, 1837. 
Mr, Alexander Campbell — My Dear Sir : 

I sincerely sympathise with you on the tediousness and perils of your 
journey, from Bethany to Cincinnati. This is truly a dreadful time to 
embark on our river, or to traverse our state. The sun's bright face I 
have not seen for several days ; I hope when the forth-coming discussion 
is once finished, our minds, like his orb, will be less dimmed by the clouds, 
and radiate the light and vital warmth without which this world would be 
a desert waste. 

If it meet your convenience, I shall be happy to meet you, at any time 
in the morning, or in the afternoon, at the Athenarum. 

Your proposition respecting the sale of an authentic copy of the discus- 
sion to a publisher, and the proceeds, all expenses deducted, applied to the 
benefit of some charitable institution, or institutions, meets my hearty con- 
currence. And I propose that one half the avails of sale be given to the 
" Cincinnati Orphan Asylum," and the other half to the " St. Peter's fe- 
male Orphan Asylum," corner of Third and Plum streets, Cincinnati. 

With best wishes for your eternal welfare, and that of all those who sin- 
cerely seek for the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, I remain 

Very respectfully yours, 

t JOHN B. PURCELL, 

Bishop of Cincinnati. 



INTRODUCTION. Vll 

The parties met in the Athenaeum at 2 o'clock, P. M. of Jan. 
11th., when after some debate on the question, WJio shall be 
the respondent ? they finally agreed to the following 

RULES OF DISCUSSION. 

1. We agree that the copy-right of the discussion shall be sold to some 
bookseller, who shall have it taken down by a stenographer, and that all the 
avails of the copy -right shall be equally divided between two such public 
charities as Bishop Purceli and Mr. Campbell shall respectively designate. 

2. That the discussion shall take place in the Sycamore-street meeting 
house ; and it shall continue seven days, exclusive of Sunday, commencing 
to-day, (Friday, 13th) from half past 9 o'clock, A. M. to half past 12, and 
from 3 to 5 P. M., each day. 

3. Mr. Campbell shall open the discussion each session, and Bishop Pur- 
cell respond. During the morning session the first speech of each shall not 
exceed an hour, nor the second half an hour. In the afternoon each speaker 
shall occupy only half an hour. 

4. This discussion shall be under the direction of a board of five modera- 
tors ; of whom each party shall choose two, and these a fifth : any three of 
whom shall constitute a quorum. 

5. The duties of the moderators shall be to preserve order in the assem- 
bly, and to keep the parties to the question. 

f JOHN B. PURCELL, 
A. CAMPBELL. 

In order to meet, as far as possible, the arrangements entered 
into for conducting the contemplated debate for seven days, Mr. 
Campbell, according to agreement, sent to bishop Purceli, on 
Thursday morning, Jan. 12, the following statement of the 

POINTS AT ISSUE. 

1. The Roman Catholic Institution, sometimes called the < Holy, Apos- 
tolic, Catholic, Church/ is not now, nor was she ever, catholic, apostolic, 
or holy ; but is a sect in the fair import of that word, older than any other 
sect now existing, not the ' Mother and Mistress of all Churches,' but an 
apostacy from the only true, holy, apostolic, and catholic church of Christ." 

2. Her notion of apostolic succession is without any foundation in the 
Bible, in reason, or in fact ; an imposition of the most injurious consequences, 
built upon unscriptural and anti-scriptural traditions, resting wholly upon the 
opinions of interested and fallible men. 

3. She is not uniform in her faith, or united in her members ; but muta- 
ble and fallible, as any other sect of philosophy or religion — Jewish, Turk- 



yiii INTRODUCTION. 

ish, or Christian— a confederation of sects, under a politico-ecclesiastic 

head. 

4. She is the " Babylon" of John, the " Man of Sin" of Paul, and the Em- 
pire of the " Youngest Horn" of Daniel's Sea Monster. 

5. Her notions of purgatory, indulgences, auricular confession, remission 
of sins, transubstantiation, supererogation, &c, essential elements of her sys- 
tem, are immoral in their tendency, and injurious to the well-being of soci- 
ety, religious and political. g 

6. Notwithstanding her pretensions to have given us the Bible, and faith in 
it, we are perfectly independent of her for our knowledge of that book, and 
its evidences of a divine original. 

7. The Roman Catholic religion, if infallible and unsusceptible of reforma- 
tion, as alleged, is essentially anti- American, being opposed to the genius of 
all free institutions, and positively subversive of them, opposing the general 
reading of the scriptures, and the diffusion of useful knowledge among 
the whole community, so essential to liberty and the permanency of good 
government. 

A. CAMPBELL. 
Cincinnati, 12th January, 1837. 



DEBATE 

ON THE 

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 



REPORT. 

The parties met according to appointment, on the 13th January, 1837, at the 
Sycamore Street Meeting House, at half past nine o'clock, A. M. 

MODERATORS. 

Messrs. Samuel Lewis, Thomas J. Biggs, William Disney, John Ro- 
gers and J. W. Piatt. 

WILLIAM DISNEY, CHAIRMAN. 

Mr. Samuel Lewis, having called the meeting to order, read the rules of the 
Debate, as agreed upon between the parties, and the propositions advanced by 
Mr. Campbell for discussion. He requested the audience to refrain from any 
audible signs of approbation or disapprobation, as it would interrupt the debate. 

Mr. Campbell then opened the debate as follows : — 

My Christian Friends and Fellow-Citizens — 

I appear before you at this time, by the good providence of our 
Heavenly Father, in defence of the truth, and in explanation of the 
great redeeming, regenerating and ennobling principles of Protestant- 
ism, as opposed to the claims and pretensions of the Roman Catholic 
church. I come not here to advocate the particular tenets of any 
sect, but to defend the great cardinal principles of Protestantism. 

Considerable pains appear to have been taken by the gentleman 
who is my opponent on this occasion, to impress upon the minds of 
the public the idea that he stands here in the attitude of a defender 
of Catholicism, and to represent me as its assailant. I am sorry to 
say that even some Protestants have contributed to give that color to 
this debate ; for I saw in this morning's Gazette an article, in which 
I am represented as conducting a crusade against the Roman Catho- 
lics. Its editor appears to have his sympathies morbidly enlisted in 
their cause. He is very sympathetic indeed, in behalf of the Roman 
Catholic religion. Every agony the mother church feels is a pang 
to him ; for every groan she heaves he has a bottle full of tears ready 
to be poured out. I will not stop to enquire whether they are politi- 
cal or religious tears. I have to do with the worthy gentleman here, 
who has represented me as having volunteered to come forward with 
an attack upon the Catholic church. 

I need scarcely inform that portion of my audience, who were pre- 
sent at the last meeting of the College of Teachers in this city, that 
so far from its being true that I made an attack in the first instance^ 

2 9 



10 DEBATE ON THE 

upon the Roman Catholic church, the gentleman did first assail the 
Protestants. 

He says in the Gazette of the 19th of Dec. 1836, that I am a bold and 
wanton challenger ; but a word of comment on this document will 
shew that it is quite the other way. 

The issue was made in the first instance in the College of Teach- 
ers. You will recollect that when Dr. J. L. Wilson read an oration 
on the subject of universal education, the gentleman arose, and in that 
Protestant house, and before a Protestant assembly, directly and pos- 
itively protested against allowing the book which Protestants claim 
to contain their religion, to be used in schools. He uttered a tirade 
against the Protestant modes of teaching, and against the Protestant 
influence upon the community. This was the origin of the dispute. 
Had it not been for the assertions made by the gentleman on that oc- 
casion, we should not have heard one word of a discussion. 

It is true that the propositions just read may present me in the at- 
titude of what he is pleased to call an assailant of the Roman church. 
But the question is — how has the controversy originated ? And let 
me ask, how is it possible for the gentleman to prove that, because, 
a year ago, I made some answer to an attack on Protestantism from 
the state of Illinois, and called for some more reputable antagonist, 
that on this account he did not assail Protestantism, and that I am 
the assailant in this case 1 Does my having been plaintiff in that 
case make me necessarily plaintiff in every other case 1 Does my 
having told him that I stood prepared to discuss the question at large 
with any creditable gentleman — [Here Mr. C. was interrupted by the 
moderators as not speaking to the point.] I submit to the decision 
of the moderators. I thought it due to myself, that the public should 
know precisely the attitude in which the gentleman and myself stand 
in this matter. I stand here as the defender of Protestantism, and 
not as the assailant of Catholicism. I wished to exonerate myself 
from such an imputation. But as the gentlemen have decided that 
we proceed at once to the question, let us begin and examine the first 
proposition. It is as follows ; 

" Prop. I. The Roman Catholic Institution, sometimes called the * Holy, 
Apostolic, Catholic, Church,' is not now, nor was she ever, catholic, apostolic, or 
holy ; but is a sect in the fair import of that word, older than any other sect now 
existing-, not the 4 Mother and Mistress of all Churches,' but an apostacy from 
the only true, holy, apostolic, and catholic church of Christ." 

As this is the place and time for logic rather than rhetoric, I will 
proceed to define the meaning of the important terms contained in 
this proposition. The subject is the Roman Catholic Institution. 
This institution, notwithstanding its large pretensions, I affirm, can 
be proved clearly to be a sect, in the true and proper import of the 
term. Though she call herself the mother and mistress of all churches, 
she is, strictly speaking, a sect, and no more than a sect. We now 
propose to adduce proof to sustain this part of the proposition. 

In the first place, the very term Roman Catholic indicates that she 
is a sect, and not the ancient, universal and apostolic church, the mo- 
ther and mistress of all churches. If she be the only universal or 
Catholic church, why prefix the epithet Roman 1 A Roman Catholic 
church is a contradiction. The word Catholic means universal — the 
word Roman means something local and particular. What sense or 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 11 

meaning is there in a particular universal church 1 It is awkward on 
another account. If she pretends to be considered the only true and 
universal church of Christ among all nations and in all times, why 
call herself Roman! To say the Roman Catholic church of Ameri- 
ca, is just as absurd as to say the Philadelphia church of Cincinnati, 
— the London church of Pittsburgh, — the church of France of the 
United States. The very terms that she chooses indicates that she 
cannot be the universal church. 

It will not help the difficulty to call her the Church of Rome. These 
words indicate a sect and only a sect, as much as the words Roman 
Catholic. They signify strictly, only the particular congregations 
meeting in that place. 

The Roman Catholic historians endeavor to reconcile this discre- 
pancy of terms by saying that, though those particular congregations 
are meant, in their larger sense the terms are used to designate all 
those congregations, scattered throughout the world, who are in com- 
munion with the church of Rome. Thus testifies Du Pin — 

" It is true, that at the present time, the name of the church of Rome, is giv- 
en to the Catholic church, and that these two terms pass for synonymous. 

"But in antiquity no more was intended by the name of the church of Rome, 
than the church of the city of Rome, and the popes (bishops) in their subscrip- 
tions or superscriptions, look simply to the quality of bishops of Rome. The 
Greek schismatics seem to be the first who gave the name of the church of 
Rome to all the churches of the west, whence the Latins made use of this to dis- 
tinguish the churches which communicated with the church of Rome, from the 
Greeks who were separated from her communion. From this came the custom 
to give the name of the church of Rome to the Catholic church. But the other 
churches did not from this lose their name or their authority." 

I shall hereafter give the day and date of this separation, when she 
received this sectarian designation and became a sect, in the proper 
acceptation of that term. It may, perhaps, appear that it was not 
only unscriptural, but dishonorable ; as opprobrious as ever were the 
terms Lutheran or Protestant. 

Rut suppose we call her " Catholic" alone ; and her advocates now 
endeavor to impress the idea that she is no longer to be called " Ro- 
man Catholic," but Catholic, this term equally proves her a sect; for 
in the New Testament and primitive antiquity there is no such de- 
signation. It is simply the church of Christ. It is one thing for us 
to choose a name for ourselves, and another to have one chosen for us 
by our enemies. Societies, like persons, are passive in receiving 
their names. It is with churches as it is with individuals ; they may 
not wear the name they prefer. She wishes now to be called no lon- 
ger Roman Catholic, but Catholic. She repudiates the appellation 
of Roman; and claims to be the only Catholic church that ever was, 
and is, and ever more shall be. But we cannot allow her to assume 
it ; and we dare not, in truth, bestow it, for she is not catholic. But, 
as there is no church known in the New Testament by that name, 
could we so designate her, still she would be a sect. 

But let me ask, what is the church of Rome of the nineteenth cen- 
tury, or rather, what is the present Roman Catholic institution 1 
Permit me here to say, most emphatically, that I have not the slight- 
est disposition to use terms of opprobrium in speaking of this church ; 
or of the worthy gentleman who is opposed to me in this debate. I 
do not wish or intend to use the slightest expression which could be 
construed into an unfriendly tone of satire, irony or invective towards 



12 DEBATE ON THE 

the respectable gentleman, or towards his church. I shall speak 
freely of her pretensions to be the only true church, &c. but I shall 
observe a scrupulous respect in all my language towards the presen 
representatives of the Catholic church in the nineteenth century. 

Are we then to understand her as the immutable, universal, ancient, 
primitive, apostolic church of Christ 1 Are we to understand this by 
the Roman Catholic church of the nineteenth century, with her popes, 
her cardinals, her patriarchs, primates, metropolitans, archbishops, 
archdeacons, monks, friars, nuns, &c. &c. teaching and preaching the 
use and worship of images, relics, penances, invocation of departed 
men and women, veneration for some being whom they call " the mo- 
ther of God," teaching and preaching the doctrine of priestly absolu- 
tion, auricular confession, purgatory, transubstantiation, extreme unc- 
tion, &c. &c. 

Is this the ancient, universal, holy apostolic church 1 Not one of 
these dogmas can be found in the bible. 

They originated hundreds of years since, as I am prepared to show, 
from the evidence of Roman Catholic authors themselves. How then 
can we call it the ancient apostolic church 1 Not one of these offices 
nor dogmas is mentioned in the New Testament. Hear Du Pin on 
this point. In exposing the imposition, practised, by an effort, so 
late as the ninth century, to foist into the history of the church certain 
pretended decrees or writings of those called the first popes, Du Pin, 
an authentic Roman Catholic historian, proves these decrees and 
writings to be spurious, because in them there are numerous allusions 
to offices and customs not yet existing in the times referred to. 

" The following proves them spurious. 1st. The second epistle of St. Clement 
directed to St. James, speaks of the Ostiarii or doorkeepers, archdeacons and 
other ecclesiastical officers, that were not then introduced into the church." 

2nd. " This letter mentions sw&-deacons, an order not then established in the 
church." p. 584. 

3d. " In the first Epistle attributed to St. Sixtus, he is called an ' archbishop/ 
a word not used in this time." 

4th. " The second, attributed to the same pope, mentions consecrated vessels, 
and appeals to Rome, the grandeur of the church. It is there pretended that all 
bishops wait for the pope's decision, and are instructed by his letters ; modes 
of speaking never used by the first bishops of Rome." 

5th. " The epistle attributed to Telesphorus calls him an archbishop, a name 
unknown in the first ages." 

6th. " There is a'decree in it, to enjoin three masses on our Savior's nativity, 
a custom not so ancient." 

7th. " We find several passages in the letter attributed to Anicetus, which 
does not agree with the time of that pope ; as, for instance^ what is there laid 
down concerning the ordinations of bishops, sacerdotal tonsure, archbishops and 
primates, which were not instituted till long after ; besides many things of the 
same nature." p. 585. 

How, then, can we suppose that this church of the nineteenth cen- 
tury, with so many appendages, is the apostolic church — the only 
original, primitive, universal institution of Christ] 

But she glories in the name of mother and mistress of all churches 
throughout the world. This astonishes me still more ; for with the 
bible in his hand and history before him, who can stand up and say, 
that this church ever was the mother and mistress of all churches 

The most ancient catholic church was the Hebrew. She was the 
mother, though not the mistress of all churches ; for the christian 
church has no reigning queen on earth, to lord it over her — as Paul t 
says, on another occasion — "Jerusalem is the mother of us all." 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 13 

If the gentleman admit Luke to be a faithful historian, he must not 
only place the Hebrew church first, but the Samaritan, Phenician, 
Syrian and Hellenist churches as older than the church in Rome. I 
say if we speak of churches, as respects antiquity, the Hebrew, Sa- 
maritan, Syrian and Phenician churches must be regarded as prior to 
her. The Acts of the Apostles close with Paul's first appearance in 
Rome. 

But that the Roman Catholic institution may stand before you in 
bold relief as a sectarian establishment, I will give you a definition 
of her pretensions, from an authentic source, one of her own stan- 
dards. The Douay catechism, in answer to the question — " What 
are the essential parts of the church ?" teaches " A pope, or supreme 
head, bishops, pastors and laity."" p. 20. 

These, then, are the four constituent and essential elements of the 
Roman Catholic chutch. The first is the pope, or head. It will be 
confessed by all, that, of these, the most essential is the head. But 
should we take away any one of these, she loses her identity, and 
ceases to be what she assumes. My first effort then shall be to prove 
that, for hundreds of years after Christ, she was without such a head ; 
the most indispensable of these elements ; and consequently, this be- 
ing essential to her existence, she was not from the beginning. Be- 
cause no body can exist before its head. Now, if we can find a time 
when there was no pope, or supreme head, we find a time when there 
was no Roman Catholic party. 

By referring to the scriptures, and to the early ecclesiastical re- 
cords, we can easily settle this point. Let us begin with the New 
Testament, which all agree, is the only authenticated standard of 
faith and manners — the only inspired record of the christian doctrine. 
This is a cardinal point, and I am thankful that in this we all agree. 
What is not found there, wants the evident sanction of inspiration, 
and can never command the respect and homage of those who seek 
for divine authority in faith and morality. 

I affirm then, that not one of the offices, I have enumerated, as be- 
longing to the Roman Catholic church, was known in the days of 
the apostles, or is found in the New Testament. On the contrary, 
the very notion of a vicar of Christ, of a prince of the apostles, or of 
a universal head, and government in the Christian church is repugnant 
to the genius and spirit of the religion. We shall read a few passa- 
ges of scripture., from the Roman version, to prove that the very idea 
of an earthly head is unscriptural and anti-scriptural. The version 
from which I am about to quote was printed in New York, and is cer- 
tified to correspond exactly, with the Rhemish original, by a number 
of gentlemen, of the first standing in society. If it differs from any 
other and more authentic copy, I will not rely upon it. I am willing 
to take whatever bible the gentleman may propose. I read from the 
twentieth of Matthew. " Jesus said to his disciples, You know that 
the princes of the Gentiles overrule them, and those that are the grea- 
ter exercise power against them. It shall not be so among you, but 
whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister !" 
Does this convey the idea of a prince among the apostles, a vicar of 
Christ, a lord over the people of God 1 Does it not rather say there 
shall not be any lordship amongst you ! This command is express, 
that there shall not be a pope, a supreme lord of the christian church. 
Again, Matt, 23. 8. " Be not you called Rabbi, for one is your Master 



14 DEBATE ON THE 

and all ye are brethren : and call none father (i. e. pope) for one is 
your father, be that is in heaven. Neither be you called masters, for 
one is your master, Christ. He that is the greater of you shall be 
your servitor !" If the very question about a pope had been before 
the Messiah at this time, he could not have spoken more clearly. 
This expression indicates the most perfect equality of rank among 
the apostles and disciples of Christ, and positively forbids, in a re- 
ligious sense, the assumption of the title of father or pope* The com 
mandment which says " thou shalt not steal," is not more clearly laid 
down than the command " call no man father." 

Now will the gentleman deny that "pope" (in Greek " pappas," 
in Latin, "papa") means "father]" and that the case clearly comes 
within the command. Jesus Christ says, " call no man pope ;" yet 
they ordain a bishop and call him pope ; and this pope claims the 
title of "universal father" — supreme head and governor of the church 
of Christ. He is sometimes called Lord God the pope. 

This testimony of Christ will outweigh volumes. Put all the fo- 
lios and authorities, which the gentleman may bring, on one side, and 
this text of Jesus Christ on the other, and the former, in comparison 
will be found light as the chaff which is blown away by a breath. 

Can any one, then, who fears God and believes in the Messiah, call 
the pope, or any human being " father" in the sense here intended. 
The Lord anticipated the future in all his precepts, and spoke with 
an eye to it as well as to the men of his own time. He had the pride 
and assumptions, of the Rabbis of Jerusalem, in his eye, who cove- 
ted renown, who loved such greetings in the market place, and re- 
ceived such compellations in the synagogues. Describing these men 
to his disciples, he cautions them against their example, and teaches 
them to regard each other as brethren. I hope the gentleman will pay 
particular attention to this point in his reply to these remarks. 

The third testimony on which we rely will be found in Ephesians 
iv. 11. This passage sums up all the officers or gifts which Jesus 
gave the church after his ascension into heaven. " And " says Paul 
" he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, 
and some pastors, and doctors " or teachers. In this enumeration, 
which contains the whole, there is no pope. The highest or first rank 
is given to apostles. 

In every other enumeration found in the epistles, there is the same 
clear reference to the apostles as the^rs^ class. 1 Cor. xii. 28. But 
let Peter himself speak as to his rank. We see that in his own 1st 
Epistle, eh. 1, he calls himself an apostle, not the apostle of Jesus, 
not the prince of apostles, not the supreme head of the church. Pe- 
ter had no idea of such headship and lordship. 

Again in addressing the "seniors" or elders, chap. v. 1. he says, 
" I myself am a fellow senior." They were all co-elders, co-bishops, 
co-apostles, as respected each other ; and as respected all other offi- 
cers the apostles were first. The thought of a supreme head amongst 
them is not found in the New Testament ; only as reprobated by our 
Savior. 

I will not, at present, advance any more scriptural authority upon 
the point, but shall proceed to examine what foundation this element 
of the Roman church, has in ancient history. But I would here say 
distinctly, once for all, that I will not open a single document to prove 
my doctrine, tenet, or principle of Protestantism, other than this holy 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 15 

record of the prophets, and apostles, the holy men of God, who spake 
as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. On these I rely, and I af- 
firm that these contain no authority for the assumption of the doctrine 
of a universal father, pope, or head of the church. There was no 
such person mentioned — no such idea cherished until hundreds of 
years after the death of the apostles. 

I will read the following general remarks by this learned historian. 
The title page is as follows : — 

A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers, containing an account of 
the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testaments; of 
the lives and writings of the primitive Fathers : an abridgment and 
catalogue of their works ; their various editions, and censures, deter- 
mining the genuine and spurious. Together with a judgment upon 
style and doctrine. Also a compendious history of the Councils ; with 
Chronological Tables of the whole, written in French by Lewis El- 
lies Du Pin, doctor of the Sorbonne, and Regius Professor at Paris 
3 vols. Folio. The Third Edition corrected, Dublin, printed by and for 
George Grierson, at the Two Bibles in Essex Street, mdccxxiv. 

I am happy to find, appended to the preface, the seals and signatures 
of men high in the church, which I cannot now stop to read. 

From this work I will proceed to read some passages in prooi 
of the proposition I have advanced, that there is not a vestige of evi 
dence in favor of the cardinal idea, of the Roman Catholic religion, 
that there was a pope in the first ages of the church. At the close of 
the third century the highest advance yet made towards any supremacy 
in the church on the ground of metropolitan standing, is thus describ 
ed by Du Pin. 

'* The bishops of great cities had their prerogatives in ordinations, and in coun- 
cils ; and as in civil affairs men generally had recourse to the civil metropolis, so 
likewise in ecclesiastical matters, they consulted with the bishop of the metro- 
politan city. The churches of the three principal cities of the world were looked 
upon as chief, and their bishops attributed great prerogatives to themselves. The 
church of Rome, founded by St. Peter and St. Paul, was considered as first, 
and its bishop as first amongst all the bishops of the world ; yet they did not be- 
lieve him to be infallible: and though they frequently consulted nim, and his 
advice was of great consequence, yet they did not receive it blind-fold and im- 
plicitly, every bishop imagining himself to have a right to judge in ecclesiastical 
matters." p. 590. 

Observe the bishops of the principal cities attributed to themselves 
great prerogatives. And Rome, the chief city, began to assume the 
chief prerogatives. But the general character of the clergy as detail- 
ed by this writer was not yet favorable to such assumptions — for, 
says he, 

" The clergy were not distinguished from others by any peculiar habits, but 
by the sanctity of their life and manners, they were removed from all kind of 
avarice, and carefully avoided every thing that seemed to carry the appearance 
of scandalous, filthy lucre. They administered the sacrament gratis, and believed 
)t to be an abominable crime to give or receive any thing for a spiritual blessing. 
Tithes were not then appropriated to them, but the people maintained them vol- 
untarily at their own expense." 

" The clergy were prohibited to meddle with any civil and secular affairs. They 
were ordained against their will and did not remove from one church to another 
out of a principle of interest or ambition. They were extremely chaste and re- 
gular. It was lawful for priests to keep the wives they married before they were 
ordained." 

Nothing indeed like an ecclesiastical establishment was yet in ex- 
istence : for says Du Pin, speaking of these times, 

" After all, it must be confessed, that the discipline of the church has been so 



16 DEBATE ON THE 

extremely different and so often altered, that it is almost impossible to say any 
thing- positively concerning it." p. 590. 

So stood the matter at the close of the third century. 
But we have still more definite and positive testimony, in the great 
councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. Let us then examine the early 
councils. The famous" council of Nice which sat in 325, is the first 
general council that ever assembled ; for although they call the con- 
sultations of the apostles — Acts 15., a council, yet in the enumeration 
of general councils, of which they establish eighteen, that of Nice is 
called the first. 

At this council there were present 318 bishops. It was called by 
the Roman emperor in order to settle certain discords in what was 
then called the church. By the sixth canon of this first council it ap- 
pears, according to Du Pin, that the idea of a pope, or supreme head, 
had not begun to be entertained. The sixth canon of the council of 
Nice is as follows. 

" The 6th canon is famous for the several questions it has occasioned. The 
most natural sense that can be given to it, is this: * We ordain that the ancient 
custom shall be observed, which gives power to the bishop of Alexandria^*over 
all the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pantapolis, because the bishop of Rome 
has the like jurisdiction over all the suburbicary regions (for this addition must 
be supplied out of Rvjinus ;) we would likewise nave the rights and privileges of 
the church of Antioch. and the other churches preserved ; but these rights ought 
not to prejudice those of the metropolitans. If any one is ordained without the 
consent of the metropolitan, the council declares, that he is no bishop: but if any 
one is canonically chosen by the suffrage of almost all the bishops of the province, 
and if there are but one or two of a contrary opinion, the suffrages of the far 
greater number oujrht to carry it for the ordination of those particular persons. 
This canon being 1 thus explained has no difficulty in it. It does not oppose the 
primacy of the church of Rome, but neither does it establish it.' 

" In this sense it is, that it compares the church of Rome to the church of 
Alexandria, by considering them all as patriarchal churches. It continues also 
to the church of Antioch and all the other great churches, whatsoever rights 
they could have; but lest their authority should be prejudicial to the ordinary 
metropolitans, who were subject to their jurisdiction, the council confirms what 
had been ordained in the fourth canon concerning the authority of metropo- 
litans in the ordination of bishops. This explication is easy and natural, and we 
have given many proofs of it in our Latin dissertation concerning the ancient 
discipline of the church." 

"This canon," says Du Pin, who be it remembered was always 
anxious to find some authority for the pope's supremacy, " does not 

ESTABLISH THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME." Willing as 

he was to have this primacy traced to the beginning of Christianity, 
he is constrained to admit, that even the council of Nice does not es- 
tablish it. Nay more — it is in truth against it ; for it gives the Bishop 
of Alexandria like jurisdiction with the church of Rome; and also 
preserves to the church of Antioch its metropolitan dominion. 

It would be too tedious to go into an exposition of the causes, why 
so much power was accumulated in the hands of four or five bishops. 
It originated in the divisions of the empire. In Roman jurisdiction, 
there were four great political dioceses, (for diocese was then a politi- 
cal term) and to these the church conformed. Hence the patriarchal 
sees of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria. In process 
of time, Jerusalem was added, and these all became radiating centres 
of ecclesiastical power and patronage. The bishop of each diocese 
assumed a sort of primacy, in his own district ; and as various inter- 
ferences and rivalries in jurisdiction occurred, the council of Nice so 
far decided that the same power should be given to them all — that all 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIC IOX. 17 

primates should be co-ordinate. Hence Du Pin could not find in that 
council authority for the supreme primacy of Rome. In the canons 
of the second and third general councils there is no reference to these 
matters whatever. 

I shall therefore proceed to the great council of Chalcedon, of pre- 
eminent authority, the greatest of the first four general councils. 

From all the canons of the council relating to government, it is evi- 
dent that they had not yet excogitated the idea of a supreme head. 
Says Du Pin, 

" The 28th canon grantsto the church of the city of Constantinople, which is 
called JVew Rome, the same privileges with old Rome, because this city is the se- 
cond city in the world. It also adjudges to it, besides this, jurisdiction over the 
dioceses of Pontus,Asia, and Thrace, and over the churches which are out of the 
bounds of the emperor, and aright to ordain metropolitans in the provinces of 
these dioceses." p. 678. 

Thus this council, composed of 340 bishops, and assembling in the 
year of our Lord 451, gave the same power to the patriarch of Con- 
stantinople as to the patriarch of Rome, and makes the supremacy of 
the one equal to the supremacy of the other. 

I have examined the proceedings of all the councils of the first six 
centuries, of which I find about 170, promulgating in all about 1400 
canons. I have read and examined the twenty creeds of the fourth 
century with all their emendations down to the close of the sixth ; 
and I affirm, without the fear of contradiction, that there is not in all 
these a single vestige of the existence of a pope or universal head of 
the church down to the time of Gregory the great, or John the Faster 
of Constantinople. 

I shall now proceed to show from the same learned historian Avhen 
this idea began to be divulged. And be it emphatically observed that 
the title of pope in its peculiar and exclusive sense was first assumed 
by the patriarch of Constantinople, and approved by the patriarch of 
Rome. Du Pin says in his life of Gregory, chap. 1, " He did of- 
ten rigorously oppose the title of universal patriarch, which the'patri- 
archs of Constantinople assumed to themselves." Indeed he calls 
the title, " proud, blasphemous, anti-christian, diabolical," and says, 
the bishops of Rome refused to take this title upon them "lest they 
should seem to encroach upon the rights of other bishops." But the 
following document or remonstrance against the title shews what a 
novelty the idea of an universal head, father, or pope was even at 
Rome, A. D. 588 :— 

" St. Gregory does not only oppose this title in the patriarch of Constantino- 
ple, but maintains also, that it cannot agree to any other bishop, and that the 
bishop of Rome neither ought, nor can assume it. John the younger, patriarch 
of Constantinople, had taken upon him this title in a council held in 586, in the 
time of pope Pelagius, which obliged this pope to annul the Acts of this coun- 
cil. St. Gregory wrote of it also to this patriarch ; but this made no impression 
on him, and John would not abandon this fine title, B. 4. Ep. 36. St. Gregory 
addressed himself to the emperor Mauritius, and exhorted him earnestly to 
employ his authority for redressing this abuse, and force him who assumed this 
title to quit it. He remonstrates to him in his letter, that although Jesus Christ 
had committed to St. Peter the care of all his churches, yet he was not called 
universal apostle.- That the title of universal bishop is against the rules of the 
gospel, and the appointment of the canons : that there cannot be an universal 
bishop but the authority of all the other will be destroyed or diminished ; that 
3? the bishop of Constantinople were universal bishop, and it should happen that 
ce should fall into heresy, it might be said that the universal church was fallen 
into destruction. That the council of Chalcedon had offered this title to Leo, 
B 2 3 



18 DEBATE ON THE 

but neither he nor his successors would accept it, lest by giving something pe- 
culiar to one bishop only, they should take away the rights which belong to all 
the bishops. — That it belongs to the emperor to reduce by his authority him 
who despises the canons, and does injury to the universal church by assuming 
this singular name." B. 4. Ep. 32. 

But at this time the patriarchs' of Constantinople and Rome were 
contending for the supremacy, and while it appeared to Gregory that 
his rival of the east was likely to possess the title, he saw in it, eve- 
ry thing anti-christian and profane. When a new dynasty, however, 
ascended the throne and offered the title to a Roman bishop, it lost all 
its blasphemy and impiety, and we find the successor of Gregory can 
wear the title of universal patriarch when tendered him by Phocas, 
without the least scrupulosity. 

It is then a fact worthy of much consideration in this discussion, 
that John bishop of Constantinople first assumed the title of univer- 
sal head of the whole christian church, and that the bishop of Rome 
did in that case oppose it as anti-scriptural and anti-christian. 

Concerning the reputation of Saint Gregory I need not be profuse. 
Of the Gregories he is deservedly called the Great. Renowned in 
history as one who stamped his own image on the Roman world for 
a period of five hundred years, yet he could not brook the idea of a 
pope, especially when about to be bestowed on his rival at Constan- 
tinople. 

St. Gregory, be it remembered, says Du Pin, did not only oppose 
the title in the case of John the Faster, as proud, heretical, blasphe- 
mous, &c. but could not agree to its being assumed by any other 
bishop ; he affirmed that the bishops of Rome ought not, dare not, 
cannot assume this pompous and arrogant title. 

Thus stood matters as respects a supreme head up to within 14 
years of the close of the 6th century. — [Time expired.] 

Eleven o'clock A. M, 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

I thought it likely, my respected and beloved fellow citizens, that I 
should have to day a difficult task before me. Rut I perceive that I 
shall have an easy one. I expected from the reputation of my antag- 
onist as a debater, that he was going to argue so closely, and to press 
me so hard, that he would, to use a common expression, make minced 
meat of me, and not leave one bone of me unbroken. I thought that 
my creed, so ancient, so venerable, so holy, was to be torn into tat- 
ters and scattered to the four winds of heaven — I was mistaken ! 

The gentleman occupied ten minutes of his time in endeavoring to 
bias the judgment of his hearers in favor of the idea, that this contro- 
versy originated not with himself, but that I was the aggressor, in 
doing which he was called to order. I will not trespass more than 
two or three minutes on your patience in answering his preliminary 
observations. 

I am willing to let that matter rest on its own merits. As to the 
question of assailant and defender in this controversy, the public have 
the data, and it is for them to judge. My worthy opponent began the 
presen-t debate by representing himself as the staunch defender of Pro- 
testantism, endeavoring thereby to enlist the sympathies of Protestants 
in his favor. And what, I would presume to inquire, are his princi- 
ples 1 What are his claims, his pretensions, or his right to appear 
before this assembly as the defender of Protestantism 1 We are all 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 19 

aware what sad pranks have been lately played off before high Hea 
ven by men styling- themselves Protestants, which all classes of Pro- 
testants unite in deprecating, which they all condemn. I know not 
whether there be not some Protestants here, who will not admit his 
gratuitous advocacy of their principles — who will not believe that the 
principles of Protestantism which he volunteers to defend will be ful- 
ly or fairly represented by him. For one, I think the Episcopalians, 
a numerous and respectable class, will not consent to be represented 
by him ; for he denies, if I am rightly informed, that there is proper- 
ly any ministry in the Protestant church so called — that a divine call 
should precede the assumption of the sacred office. [Here the mod- 
erators interrupted, by requesting the speaker to confine himself to the 
question.] 

Well we are so far even, [a laugh.] The gentleman, then, began 
by the assertion that the term Roman Catholic was an incongruity.- — 
But I deny it to be an incongruity. Terms, we all know, are used 
the more clearly to designate the idea or object which they represent. 
" Catholic" is the name of our church ; and we only prefix the word 
Roman to signify that she is in communion with the see of Rome. 
We acknowledge there a primate of superior, ecclesiastical jurisdic- 
tion, and in his communion we do abide. 

He says the word Roman is incongruous ; yet his own authority, 
Du Pin, says it was synonymous with Catholic. It was so under- 
stood formerly. And here I may observe that I deny the authority 
of Du Pin to be competent to the settlement of questions to be called 
up for decision in the course of the present controversy. Du Pin was 
a Jansenist, removed from his place of Regius Professor at the Sor- 
bonne for his doctrinal errors, by Louis XIV. to whom Clement XI. 
addressed a brief on this occasion, commending his zeal for the 
truth. The claim of Rome was undisputed in the early ages, and it 
was only when her preeminence was contested that the term " Roman" 
was used before the word Catholic. Hence it was no incongruity, 
but a clearer designation of the see in whose communion were all the 
churches. He has stated an inaccuracy in saying that the word cath- 
olic was not found in the bible. Is not the epistle of St. James cal- 
led catholic 1 And will he presume to say the word was not placed 
there in the very first age of Christianity 1 

The gentleman says he will use no words that may convey an op- 
probrious meaning. God forbid that I should set him the example. 
I shall debate this question with earnestness, but not v/ith passion. 
As soon as the discussion closes, I can meet the gentleman without a 
single unkind or unfriendly feeling. 

But in enumerating various doctrines of the Catholic church, I was 
shocked to hear him use the language " some being called the mother 
of God." Great God ! didst thou not send into the world thy Son, 
Jesus Christ, to save perishing man, and didst thou not select one 
of all the daughters of Eve,to be the mother of that child of benedic- 
tion, and was not Mary this holy one, to whose care was committed 
his infancy, and to whom he was subject] Was she not the chosen 
one of heaven, to whom its archangel was sent with the communica- 
tion — " Hail, full of Grace," or as it is in the Protestant version — 
" thoa that art highly favored — the Lord is with thee," and do we 
now hear her stigmatized in such language, and designated as " some 
being called the mother of God V 



20 DEBATE ON THE 

The gentleman then contests the doctrine of a hierarchy in the 
church ; and says what he asserts is proved by the scriptures. I 
would ask — has he read the bible 1 Has he read the book of Leviti- 
cus 1 Does he not find there the example set of a distinction of orders 
in religious affairs 1 Did not the Lord speak to Moses, saying, — 
" ' Take Aaron with his sons, their vestments and the oil of unction,' 
and he poured it on Aaron's head — he put also the mitre on his head 
And after he had offered his sons, he vested them with linen tunics 
and girded them with girdles," &c. &c. " And Nadab and Abiu 
were consumed with fire for opposing them, and they died before the 
Lord." Did not Moses lead 1 Did not Aaron assist % Were there 
not councillors appointed by the Lord, to divide the burden of their 
ministry 1 Did not king Josaphat send Zachariah and Nathaniel and 
Michael, and with them the Levites, Senneias, &c, to teach the peo- 
ple ] Paralip. 17. 7. What is this but a distinction of orders and of 
authority in the Jewish dispensation 1 

He says there was no distinction of orders in the early christian 
church ; and he refuted himself by appealing for a solution of the dif- 
ficulty to St. Paul. Were there no orders, no hierarchy'? What says 
St. Paul in 4th Ephesians ] " And he gave some apostles, and some 
prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors, and 
teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, 
for the edifying of the body of Christ ; until we all meet unto the 
unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect 
man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ." We 
must here remark a gradation of authority in the church of God. For 
what] For the work of the ministry. There never has existed a so- 
cial body without subordination, or distinction of rank. The church 
of Christ is a social body. It needs to be subjected to order, even 
more than a political body; and as if St. Paul anticipated the objec- 
tion, which we have, not without surprise, heard this day urged, he 
expressly states the object of the institution of a hierarchy by him, 
who ascending on high gave gifts to men, to be the perfecting of the 
saints — the unity of faith. " Are all," he asks, (what my friend 
would make them) " prophets ? Are all pastors V? — He elsewhere 
asks, " How can they preach unless they be sent 1 ?" By whom ] By 
an ecclesiastical superior. — So much for the evidence of the Old Tes- 
tament, and the New Testament. They both teach a head, a hierar- 
chy and subordination among the people of God. 

This takes me to the examination of the title, assumed by the Cath- 
olic church, of mother and mistress of all the churches. He says 
Jerusalem was the mother church at first — and then the Samaritan, 
and so on, I need not follow him. I will explain what we mean by 
the term. — We call her mother because she guides, she cherishes us. 
We call her mother, because we feel a filial reverence for her — just 
as an orphan calls her who protects her, educates her, and guides her 
wandering feet, by the same tender appellative. There is no blasphe- 
my in this comparison. It is the Son of God that established the 
authority of that church. The name is its designation. 

But the word ' mistress' is never used in speaking of the church, 
in the sense of lordship, or queenship. It is the way in which chil- 
dren address their teacher. They frequently use the expression, as 
we read in Cordery's Colloquies, "salve magister." Magistra here is 
addressed to her in her capacity of teacher, and such she is. and, as I 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 21 

shall prove, by the appointment and the express institution of Jesus 
Christ. 

He next referred to the Do way catechism to show from the defini- 
tion of the Catholic church, that she consisted of four elements, viz. 
the pope, bishops, pastors, and laity. 

Now the catechism of this diocese defines the Catholic church to 
be the congregation of all the faithful, professing the same faith, re- 
ceiving the same sacraments, and united under one visible head, the 
pope, or vicar of Jesus Christ, on earth. 

It is defined to be the congregation of all the faithful. This is the 
definition which most authors give. It is that of the catechism from 
which my friend has quoted. 

But let us adopt his definition, and I am prepared to show that the 
idea of a supreme head has its origin in the bible, and is supported 
by the earliest ecclesiastical authority. I must here take notice of the 
promise he gave to put his finger on the precise day and date when 
the church called the Roman Catholic church, ceased to be the church 
of Christ. He has left us as much in the dark as ever on this most 
important of all events. It is a point which has puzzled the world, 
and will for ever puzzle it, to fix that date. It will, I am sure, puz- 
zle my friend. The whole world has never been able to state at what 
particular moment the Catholic church lost her prerogative and the 
favor of God — when she ceased to be in the true sense the Catholic 
Church. The reason of this is obvious. She has never forfeited her 
prerogative. But to the matter before us. It is opposed to scripture 
to assert that the church in apostolic days had no head. What did 
Christ say to Peter when he addressed him the mysterious question — 
" Lovest thou me more than these"? Peter says he does love him. 
Jesus gives him the order, " feed my lambs." A second time he asks 
the question, and receives the same reply. The third time he repeats 
the same question. Peter, troubled that his Lord should doubt his 
affection, replies, " Oh Lord, thou knowest all things — thou knowest 
that I love thee," and Jesus repeated the command — " feed my lambs" 
— " feed my sheep." 

Thus Christ establishes the headship of the church in Peter, and 
him he makes his vice-gerent, or common pastor, to feed both lambs 
and sheep — both clergy and laity. 

Mr. Campbell quarrels with the doctrine of the pope's headship 
because it carries a power and an authority with it : and he quotes the 
New Testament to prove no such power to have been exercised in the 
days of the apostles. I have disproved his argument upon this point 
already. Christ did institute a body of leaders, a ministry to guide 
his people, " that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, 
and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of 
men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive. 
But doing the truth in Christ, we may in all things grow up in him 
who is head, even Christ; from whom the whole body being compac- 
ted and fitly joined together, by what every part supplieth, according 
to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the 
body, unto the edifying of itself in charity." Must not the body 
have a head, the house a foundation] He objects that we call the 
sovereign pontiff — Pope, or father, whereas Christ says, "call not any 
man Father." But is this prohibition of our Savior to be taken liter- 
ally] Is there any guilt or imoiety in calling a parent " Father ]" 



22 DEBATE ON THE 

Many of Christ's commands are similar. He commands us to call 
no man good: for God only is good. But do we not, in saluting a 
friend in common life, say " Good Sir," " my good friend!" &c. Is 
there any impiety in this 1 It is the using these terms in that sense 
in which they are peculiar to the divinity, which Christ forbids. And 
the pope when he corresponds with the bishops, does not assume 
these proud titles, but addresses them as an elder Brother. We do 
not call him " Lord God the Pope." 

Mr. C. says, St. Paul did not lord it over the clergy. Neither 
does the pope. He is to govern the church according to the canons. 
He can make no articles of faith. He cannot, he does not act arbi- 
trarily in proposing articles of belief unknown to Catholic antiquity. 
But neither will he suffer innovation. His language is like St. Paul's, 
" Were I or an angel from Heaven to preach to you any other gospel, 
than what has been preached, let him be Anathema !" This expres- 
sed the sense the great apostle entertained of his own responsibility, 
and the danger of novelty in religion. He would not suffer altar to 
be raised against altar, on the ground of private interpretation of the 
bible. He would not suffer the wolves of heresy and error to prowl 
around the fold, and tear, and scatter the sheep entrusted to him by 
Jesus Christ. 

It would be horrid blasphemy to apply to man the title Father, in 
the sense in which it is addressed to God. We never call the pope 
in any sense God. When the pope writes to the bishops, he begins 
by " Dilecti Fratres" " Beloved Brethren," — a republican, and if 
you please democratic address. The bishops are all brethren under 
one common father. The pope is accused of letting himself be wor- 
shipped. This is not so. But when the Pope comes before the altar 
he bows down like the humblest of his people. " I confess," says 
he, "to Almighty God, to the blessed Virgin Mary, the holy Apostles, 
and to all the Saints," the least of whom he therefore acknowledges 
to be greater than himself, " that I have sinned ;" and this is what is 
called setting himself up to be a God ! See how you have been de- 
ceived by the invidious representations you have had of the pope, and 
of our doctrine, my friends. 

I assert again that the authority quoted by my friend, Mr. C, viz. 
Du Pin, is no authority. He was the rank enemy of the Roman see, 
a Jansenist, reproved and censured by the Catholic church. Mr. C. 
knows this, for I have read to him the documents that prove it, and 
he was confounded by them. It is neither good faith, nor good logic, 
to quote him as an authority against my argument. As for the signa- 
tures appended to the English translation, I care not for them ; they 
may have been wrongfully placed there, or those certificates suborn- 
ed. This makes nothing for the authority of the book, and no argu- 
ment can be drawn from them. But, my friends, I am sure you dis- 
covered his discomfiture when he appealed to Du Pin. There was a 
stumbling block in his way, something he could not get over. Did 
you not notice how with the rapid speed of a rail-road car dashing 
suddenly on an obstruction, he fled the track, when he found to his as- 
tonishment that the testimony adduced by his author, was not unfa- 
vorable to the supremacy of St. Peter, and his successors ! I will 
examine his writings to show that even in the third century, the bish- 
ops of Rome claimed this prerogative, and Du Pin tells you that this 
was acknowledged. He says there were three principal bishops. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 23 

This is a great admission, and I am thankful for it. He says that 
even then, bishops came from inferior sees, and laid their conflicting 
claims before the see of Rome ; and submitted to the chair of Peter, 
doubts in religious matters ; and urged it to proclaim a solution of 
their difficulties ; but he says, they did not believe the pope of Rome 
infallible. This is granting to the Catholics the whole mooted ques- 
tion. The question is clearly settled by this admission. Appeals 
were lodged before the bishop of Rome, though he was not believed 
to be infallible. Neither is he now. No enlightened Catholic holds j 
the pope's infallibility to be an article of faith. I do not; and none J 
of my brethren, that I know of, do. The Catholic believes the pope, 
as a man, to be as liable to error, as almost any other man in the uni- 
verse. Man is man, and no man is infallible, either in doctrine or 
morals. Many of the popes have sinned, and some of them have 
been bad men. I presume my worthy antagonist will take his brush 
in hand, and roll up his sleeves, and lay it on them hard and heavy ; 
so will I.; and whenever he uses a strong epithet against them, I will 
use a stronger. But let us return to the gentleman's authority, Du 
Pin. We come to the council of Nice, which was held A. D. 325, 
and where 318 bishops were assembled. This council was convoked 
by the first christian emperor Constantine the Great, at the suggestion, 
I might have more correctly said the instigation of Sylvester, bishop 
of Rome, and of course, with his consent. Osius, bishop of Cordo- 
va, and two legates, Vitus and Vincentius, presided in it, in the name 
of the Roman pontiff. The principal doctrine on which the council 
was assembled to decide, was the divinity of Jesus Christ denied by 
the Arians. From the manner of the convocation of the council, the 
circumstance of its having been presided over by the representatives 
of the pope, or bishop of Rome, the submission of the entire chris- 
tian world to its decrees, and the authentic records of its transactions 
which have reached us, we have the most convincing evidences of the 
reverence which was even then entertained for the successor of St. 
Peter ; and the best practical illustration of the wisdom that estab- 
lished his pre-eminence of rank among his brethren, to watch over 
the purity of doctrine, the soundness of morals, the uniformity of 
discipline, and the maintenance of union among the churches. What 
more direct and satisfactory testimony could we require of the supre- 
macy of the see of Rome, than the distinct recognition of its authori- 
ty by so venerable an assembly ] And what if rival claims were ad- 
vanced by other sees? This ambitious spirit is as old as Christiani- 
ty, as ancient as the origin of the human race. The apostles, them- 
selves, strove for the mastery. They contended which of them was 
the greater. But this rivalry only served, in the end, to establish 
more firmly the precedency of the claim of St. Peter. In answer to 
the pretensions of the bishop of Alexandria, the council says to him, 
" As the bishop of Rome has his primacy in Rome, so the bishop of 
Alexandria has his primacy in Alexandria." It says to him, " you 
have no cause to complain — if he has his authority, you have yours ; 
in your respective sees, or churches, you have the chief control ; but 
it is his prerogative, as occupying the place of Peter, to watch over 
the welfare of all." " Neither," says Du Pin, " does it disprove 
the primacy of rome." The council offered a sedative to the pride 
of the bishop of Alexandria, or asserted his authority in his own see, 
but it does not disprove the primacy of Rome. 



24 DEBATE ON THE 

What more do you want than what God has caused to be thus re- 
corded here? 

The dissension first originated among the patriarchal sees. The 
counsel took cognizance of it, and decided according to the rules and 
usages of the apostolic and immediately subsequent ages. From this, 
whatever follows, it surely does not follow that there was no primacy 
in Rome. 

He says that the bishop of Constantinople assumed to call himself 
the universal bishop, and that the emperor winked at it. What does 
this mean ] Why that the crafty emperor, and the more subtle bishop 
intended to compel Rome to acknowledge Constantinople as her 
equal. This attempt of the emperor and the patriarch illustrates the 
point at issue, and clears it in fact of any difficulty. They knew that 
Rome was referred to on every occasion ; and that her decision was 
final. They were jealous of her authority. The manner of this as- 
sumption of the bishop of Constantinople, and of the emperor wink- 
ing at it, are in fact proofs of the supremacy of Rome. Now, thought 
the proud Greek, I will bring this haughty pontiff of Rome crouching 
to my feet, I will make him surrender all his authority, and we, the 
emperor and myself, will divide the earth between us. It was there- 
fore that the bishop made this assumption, and that the emperor winked 
at it. It was in this unjust and intolerable sense of the term Universal 
Father, that Gregory who deserves all the praise which has been 
given him, and more, objected to its assumption. It was thus that he 
reprobated the title of universal father. 

If the bishop of Rome now claims to be called the first pastor in 
Christendom, he pretends to be no lord of the consciences of his breth- 
ren, or dictator of the terms of salvation to the servants of God. 
He acknowledges with humility his own intrinsic nothingness, unless 
supported by God, and guided and guarded by him in the administra- 
tion of his eminently responsible office. 

He is a father because he breaks the mystic bread, and dispenses 
the spiritual nourishment of sound doctrine to the souls of the people 
of God. He is a father because to him we appeal in our doubts, and to 
him refer in every emergency, as to the vicar of Christ. 

The term Universal Father was likewise worthy of the condemna- 
tion of Gregory, in the bad sense in which it was assumed by the pa- 
triarch of Constantinople, viz. that of lord and master of spiritual 
power and of the consciences of the brethren, so as not to need or ask 
the advice of the bishops. The pope never gives a decree without 
taking counsel from his constitutional advisers, availing himself of 
the light of present wisdom and past experience. He takes all human 
means to weigh the subject well and to come to a sound and scriptural 
conclusion. Discard the pope — sever from the communion of the 
church of Rome, and you lose all claim, or shadow of claim to a con- 
nexion with the apostles. Hear Waddington speaking of the Vaudois — 

" In our journey back towards the apostolic times, these separatists conduct 
us as far as the beginning of the twelfth century; but when we would advance 
farther, we are intercepted by abroad region of darkness and uncertainty. A 
spark of hope is indeed suggested by the history of the Vaudois. Their origin is 
not ascertained by any authentic record, and being immemorial, it may have 
been coeval with the introduction of Christianity. 

" But since there is not one direct proof of their existence during that long 
space; since they have never been certainly discovered by the curiosity of any 
writer, nor detected by the inquisitorial eye of any orthodox bishop, nor 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 25 

named by any pope, or council, or any church record, chronicle, or memorial 
we are not justified in attaching any historical credit to their mere unsupported 
tradition. It is sufficient to prove, that they had an earlier existence than the 
twelfth century ; but that they had then been perpetuated through eight or 
nine centuries, uncommemorated abroad, and without any national monument 
to attest their existence, is much more than we can venture, on such evidence, 
to assert. Here then the golden chain of our apostolic descent disappears; 
' and though it may exist, buried in the darkness of those previous ages, and 
though some writers have seemed to discern a few detached links which they 
diligently exhibited, there is still much wanting to complete the continuity." 
[Page 554 of the History of the Church from the earliest ages, by Rev. Geo. 
iVaddington, A. M. fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Prebendary of 
Ferring, in the cathedral church of Chichester, New York edition, 1835.] 

Well if Christ established a church on earth, that church must be 
catholic. "I believe in the holy catholic church," is the language 
of the apostles and of councils, of Protestants as well as of Catholics. 
The true church must be catholic. What church then is catholic 1 
The universe answers the question — Italy, France, Spain, Austria, 
Ireland, South America, Canada, five hundred churches lately erected 
in England, Calcutta, Ceylon, Oceana, all the islands of the Pacific 
and the Atlantic : even in every country where Protestantism is dom- 
inant, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the testimony is given, and the 
words " I believe in the holy catholic church" are used by the mem- 
bers of the Roman Catholic church, who alone have a right to use 
them. Applied to any other church they are a misnomer. Protestants 
cannot employ such language. They are cut up into a thousand dis- 
cordant and chaotic sects. As no other church but ours is now cath- 
olic, so no other but ours ever has been or will be catholic. " Chris- 
tian is my name and Catholic my surname," said Pacian. With love 
smd charity to all men the Roman Catholic church subsists throughout 
all time, teaches all truth, and gathers into her communion the children 
of every clime. W^hat she lost in one region, she gained in another. 
The axe of persecution that lopped oflf some of her branches, made 
the vigorous trunk produce the more luxuriously. 

" Investigating," says Fletcher, " in those countries, where either Christianity 
has once subsisted, or where it subsists at present — the monuments which they 
exhibit, and interrogating these (monuments have voices, my brethren, that speak 
plainly,) — it will be found that they all loudly attest the greatness and the an- 
tiquity of our religion. " We are Catholics," the venerable ruins say, "and 
the emblems even, which still adorn us, shew it." It is so, likewise, not only in 
the monuments, which were once, or are yet, sacred to religion, but in a great 
variety of other vestiges. The proofs of the ancient splendor of Catholicity are 
legible on almost every object, that has seen the tide of ages roll away, — on the 
palaces of princes, — on the castles of the great, — on the gates of cities, — on the 
asylums of charity, — on the tombs of the dead. They may be read in the con- 
stitutions and laws of kingdoms — in the foundations and rules of universities, — 
in the customs and peculiarities of the vulgar. ****** 

It is indeed, possible that prejudice may object to those arguments, that, 
"they are very general and indistinct, — proving, it is true, that in almost every 
nation, and in every age, there has existed a widely diffused religion, — a Catholic 
religion, but not pro ring that this religion, its principles and doctrines, were in 
every age the same — in every age, the identical religion, which the Catholic be- 
lieves at present." It is the essence of the true religion to remain unchanged; 
and to have descended, and to descend always, down the stream of time, without 
corruption or alteration. If, therefore, I undertake distinctly to prove, that the 
Catholic religion of the present period is indeed, the true religion, then should 
I also distinctly prove that it has never undergone any alteration, and that it is 
the same, which, revealed originally to mankind, has, during the course of eigh- 
teen centuries, formed always the object of the veneration of the orthodox be- 
liever." vol. 2, p. 173. 

C 4 



26 DEBATE ON THE 

" As it was the design of God, that the true church should be Catholic; so it 
was also his design, that the true church should always be distinguished by the 
honorable appellation of Catholic: — as it was the will of Jesus Christ, that the 
establishment which he formed, should extend through every nation, and subsist 
through every age; so also it was his will, that this establishment should be dig- 
nified by a name corresponding to these great characteristics. " I believe," the 
apostles commanded the faithful in every age to say, " in the holy Catholic 
Church" "by this name Catholic," says St. Austin, "i am retained in the 
Catholic church ," " my name " adds St. Pacian, "is Christian; my surname 
Catholic; and by this surname, I am distinguished from all the sects of 
heresy." Sermon on the catholicitv of the church, page 195, vol. ii. Bait. 
edit. 1830. 

It is certainly, my beloved friends, a very animating circumstance, to view the 
immensity and the long duration of our church; to see it stretching out its em- 
pire through every climate; consoling by its benefits, and enlightening by its doc- 
trines, the remotest corners of the universe: to see it existing through the long 
lapse of so many ages, unmoved, while the strongest empires sink to ruin; and 
unshaken, while all things fall in decay around it. It is animating to remark it 
triumphant over all the powers of darkness, and the exertions of human malice; 
combating often, it is true, with the storms of persecution and the artifices of 
heresy; vet combating, always, to come off with victory; riding through the tem- 
pest, and exalted by the very means which had been levelled at its depression. 
Ibid, page 198. 

From this contemplation, my christian friends, we may derive the consoling 
assurance, that happen or befal what may, though the billows of persecution 
swell and the tide of error rage; every eft'ort to destroy the church shall turn 
out fruitless. The church, these scenes assure you, is an edifice protected by the 
hand of the Almighty, a rock fixed on the basis of the divine power amid the 
sea of human life. The billows of persecution shall swell, the tide of error 
dash against it in vain. They will no more move it, although they may, in- 
deed, sweep away many of its unguarded members, than the gentlest spray 
will move the firmest mountain that the ocean laves. 1 should be sorry to see 
the misfortune happen, yet could I behold the most furious tempest gathering 
without one feeling of anxiety for the stability of the church. As the Psalmist 
says, " it should come to nothing', like the running' water" (Ps. lvii.) It would 
prove but the preparation for fresh conquests. The security of the church amid 
storms, during the long interval of eighteen centuries, is alone sufficient assur- 
ance of its security, amid the fury of future tempest. Ibidem, page 193. • 

If it can be proved that the Catholic church had not these 
characteristics, we admit she is not the church of Christ. I shall go 
to trial on this point. If she has ever ceased to teach the whole doc- 
trine of Christ, to diffuse over all nations, the true christian precepts, 
or if she has not had a larger body of professors, than any of the sects, 
that separated in every successive age from her communion, then will 
I yield the question. But it will try the ingenuity of the gentleman 
to prove any such thing, and still more, to show in that case, what 
church was catholic. This difficulty meets him at the very threshold, 
[Time expired] 

Three o'clock, P. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

My learned and worthy opponent commenced his forenoon speech, 
saying that he found before him a more easy task than he had expect- 
ed. Were it a question of rhetoric rather than of logic, I confess I 
should have more to fear. He has been more accustomed than I, to 
/ the display of that art. I am rather a matter of fact man, and logic 
more than rhetoric has occupied my attention. 

I apprehend, however, before this discussion is ended he may find 
his task not quite so easy as he would seem to anticipate. And to me 
the good book has suggested a caution which I hope always to remem- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 2? 

ber. It is happily couched in these words, " Let not him that buck- 
leth on his armor boast as he that taketh it off." 

But to examine his defence, so far as in it there is reference to my 
speech, has he not made in the very first effort an unfortunate admis- 
sion 1 The name Catholic he admits is^generic and the name Roman 
specific, — and that the term Roman only indicated the church in which 
this catholic communion is to be enjoyed : that the universal church 
is found in the particular, the genus in the species. Thus we can 
have Greek catholic, English catholic, American catholic, as well 
as Roman catholic. These particular universals are susceptible' of 
indefinite multiplication. And so the catholicity of Rome is specifi- 
cally the same with that of England ! ! 

His second admission is equally unfortunate. He did not seem to 
perceive that he argued for me rather than against me, on the word 
father. He said that it could not be understood literally. So said I. 
How then must it be used but religiously 1 Call no man your religious 
or ecclesiastic Father. He has then fully conceded all that I ask. It 
is then an absolute prohibition of the Roman Catholic notion of a 
supreme holy father. To designate any person pope is then a viola- 
tion of Christ's command. 

The gentleman has admitted, somewhat reluctantly however, that 
the Doway catechism is a standard work, and that the definition of 
the church is infallibly correct. My argument hitherto has been to 
shew that the supreme head called pope, being of the essential ele- 
ments, nay the chief element of the Roman Catholic church, and not 
found either in the bible or ecclesiastic history for ages after the chris- 
tian era, the church of Rome is a sect in the true import of that 
word, and not the mother and mistress of all churches, for she cannot 
be older than her head, unless a body can exist without and before its 
head, which is impossible. It is not the nature of that head, whether 
political or ecclesiastic or both, but the simple fact of its existence 
concerning which we enquire. The nature and claims of the head 
may hereafter be the subject of examination. That the Roman sect 
is divided into four parties, touching the supremacy — one affirming 
that the pope is the fountain of all power political and religious — 
another teaching that he has only ecclesiastic supremacy — a third 
party affirming that his ecclesiastic dominion is over all councils, per- 
sons and things spiritual, and a fourth party limiting his jurisdiction 
to a sort of executive presidency — is a proposition susceptible of 
ample proof, and of much importance, but we wish it to be very 
distinctly stated that the question now before us is the fact that a 
head, or universal father, pope or patriarch, is not found in the Roman 
empire, east or west, for six hundred years, and consequently that 
during that time that church did not exist, whose four essential ele- 
ments, are a pope or supreme head, bishops, pastors and laity. 

I am the more diffuse on this point because my learned opponent 
seems to mistake the question or to confound it Avith another of a diffe- 
rent category. He seems to be squinting at infallibility, authority, 
order in the ministry, rather than looking in the face the simple ques- 
• tion, was there a pope in any church for the first six centuries ? Authority 
is not infallibility, nor is order, supremacy. I go for authority in the 
president of the United States, but who infers thence that I hold the 
president to be infallible ! I go for order in the christian church, but 
what has this to do with the supremacy of the bishop of Rome] 



28 DEBATE ON THE 

Why, I emphatically ask, does the bishop of Cincinnati confound the 
question of fact before us with that concerning the Levitical priest- 
hood. I have not agitated such a question. 

And what have my views of church order and government to do 
with the question before us. Why drag these matters into discussion. 
Did I not distinctly say that I came not here to defend the tenets of 
any party of Protestants, but the great principles of Protestantism ? 
And what have my views of church order to do with the questions at 
issue ! Of these however the gentleman is wholly misinformed. I am 
the advocate of order, of a christian ministry, of bishops and deacons 
in the church. Without order no society can exist, and therefore no 
reasonable man can object either to order or authority in the church. 
But again I ask what is this to the question in debate ! 

He gave us too a dissertation on the passage, " lovest thou me more 
than these." This is certainly gratuitous at this time. I am glad 
however the gentleman has delivered himself on this text. But this 
is not the question now. We are seeking for a head for the church, 
a papal head for the church in the first ages, while our friend is ex- 
pounding scriptures on other themes. 

To the authority of Du Pin the gentleman seems to except. But 
on what authority does he object] His works are certified by the 
doctors of the Sorbonne and by the guardians of the Catholic press. 
Will he say that he is not an authentic historian ? Du Pin was born 
and educated! lived and died and was buried in the Roman Catholic 
church. The gentleman proved, two or three months ago, that general 
La Fayette was a Roman Catholic because he was baptized in the 
church of Rome and buried in consecrated ground. Certainly then 
Du Pin was all this and more ! It matters not whether he was a Jan- 
senist or Jesuit. Both orders have been at different times in good and 
bad repute. Jansenists have sometimes been proscribed, and Jesuits 
have been suppressed. But the question is not, was he a good Ca- 
tholic, but was he an authentic historian ? For a good Catholic is one 
thing, and a good historian is another. I wish the gentleman to 
answer. (Bishop Puree!] . ] answer emphatically, he was not an au- 
thentic historian.) 

Then this gentleman and the bishop of Bardstown are at variance. 
The latter gentleman, if I mistake not, admitted in a discussion pub- 
lished in the Catholic paper of that place, that Du Pin was an authen- 
tic historian. I have seen this work repeatedly quoted in discussions 
between Romanists and Protestants, and I do not recollect to have 
seen any thing advanced against his authenticity. Mr. Hughes of 
Philadelphia, but on different grounds than those stated by my opponent, 
did indeed object to him as a faithful witness in his controversy with 
Mr. Breckenridge. However while I wish it to go to the public that 
bishop Purcell has objected to Du Pin as an authentic historian, I will 
distinctly state that I rely upon him in this controversy only so far as 
he is sustained by other historians, and therefore I will only quote 
him in such matters as I know can be sustained from other sources. 
Other historians record the same fact, and many of the works which 
Du Pin quotes are not only extant but accessible. 

The word catholic the gentleman has stated that it is of high anti- 
quity and found at the head of some books of the New Testament. 
But how came it into the New Testament 1 Was it Robert Stephens 
of Paris that placed it there in the 16th century as a sort of general 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 29 

heading to certain epistles, or was it placed there by the apostles 
themselves 1 

Touching the council of Nice and whether Sylvester had any thing 
to do with its convocation, may hereafter be worthy of discussion ; 
at present this is not before us. The decree of the council and its 
convocation are distinct things. 

Of the texts relied on by me to dispose of the pretensions of supre- 
macy, the gentleman has taken special exception to Ep. iv. 11. and 
would have different orders of ecclesiastic powers, rather than gifts 
for the edification of the church and the fitting of saints for the work 
of the ministry, to be contained in that passage. But the text says 
gifts and not lordships. Of these gifts vouchsafed by the ascended 
Savior the first was apostles. " He gave first apostles, secondarily 
prophets," and here again " he gave some apostles and some pro- 
phets." No supremacy is expressed of an individual. It is not ranks 
of authorities like civil or military functionaries, such as magistrates, 
aldermen, constables, &c, but gifts of light and knowledge and grace, 
the splendid gifts of the Holy Spirit ; gifts of teaching, preaching, ex- 
horting, and setting up the tabernacle or church. The apostles had 
all authority and all gifts themselves ; but they needed assistants and 
a distribution of labor, and not an hierarchy, in laying the foundation 
and in fitting saints for the work of the christian ministry. 

Having now touched all the relevant points in the Bishop's opening 
speech, I hasten to my argument. 

On examination of the New Testament, the primitive fathers, the 
councils both provincial and general, down to the close of the 6th cen- 
tury, we do not find in the whole territory claimed by our opponents 
as yet, the idea or name of a supreme head, pope, or vicar of Christ. 

My learned antagonist has not produced any such document, and 
doubtless he knows if there be any such authority now extant, and 
would produce it. 

The strong expressions of Saint Gregory in opposition to the title 
shew what a singular novelty it was in Rome during " his pontifi- 
cate," and his bold declaration not only of the arrogance and blas- 
phemy of the title, but of its aspect to all the bishops, as annulling 
their equality, sufficiently prove that he rightly appreciated its true 
meaning and its hostility to the genius of that simplicity and humility 
which comported with the servants of Christ. So far then as we have 
examined the evidence on hand, the defence of the Bishop, the argu- 
ment as now developed stands thus : — a pope, or universal patriarch, 
is the first essential element of the Roman Catholic sect. But there 
was no such personage in existence for 600 years after Christ, there- 
fore there was no church of Rome, in the sense of the creed, during 
the- first six centuries. 

}/ We are now prepared to narrate the circumstances which ushered 
into being the pope of Rome. Mauritius the emperor of the East died 
at the hand of Phocas a centurion of his own army. Mauritius fa- 
vored the pretensions of the bishop of Constantinople, and turned a 
deaf ear to the importunities of Gregory on the subject of taking from 
bishop John the title of universal father, so painful to the pride and 
humility of the great Gregory. For the saint had written to the em- 
peror on the arrogance of John, metropolitan of the great diocese of 
the east. Mauritius was supplanted and the throne usurped by Pho- 
cas. Gregory rejoiced at his death, and hailed the elevation of his 
c 2 



30 DEBATE ON THE 

murderer to the throne. Gregory consecrated him, in the church 
of St. John the Baptist at Constantinople, and Phocas, as a re- 
ward for his consecration and favorable regards, conferred upon the 
successor of Gregory, Boniface the third, the title of universal patri- 
arch in the very sense in which it had been repudiated by Gregory. 
Thus in the year 606 two years after the death of the saint, the 
first pope was placed in the chair of the Galilean fisherman, if in- 
deed Peter had ever sat in a chair inRome. 

Concerning the consecration of Phocas, Mr. Gibbon thus remarks : 

11 The senate and clergy obeyed his summons, and as soon as the patriarch 
was assured of his orthodox belief, he consecrated the successful usurper in the 
church of St. John the Baptist. On the third day, amidst the acclamations of a 
thoughtless people, Phocas made his public entry in a chariot drawn by four 
white horses: the revolt of the troops was rewarded by a lavish donation, and 
the new sovereign, after visiting the palace, beheld from his throne the games 
of the hippodrome." Gibbon's Decline and Fall Rom. Emp. vol. viii. p. 269. 

But the infidel has good reason to laugh at the saint, where he re- 
cords the exultation of Gregory at the death of Mauritius. 

"As a subject and a christian it was the duty of Gregory to acquiesce in the 
established government; but the joyful applause with which he salutes the for- 
tunes of the assassin, has sullied with indelible disgrace the character of the 
saint.' The successor of the apostles might have inculcated with decent firm- 
ness the guilt of blood, and the necessity of repentance: he is content to cele- 
brate the deliverance of the people and the fall of the oppressor; to rejoice that 
the piety and benignity of Phocas have been raised by Providence to the imperial 
throne; to pray that his hands may be strengthened against all his enemies ; and 
to express a wish, perhaps a prophecy, that after a long and triumphant reign, he 
may be transferred from a temporal to an everlasting kingdom." Id. ib. p. 211. 

It looks indeed as if Gregory had permitted the recollection of the 
conduct of Mauritius towards his rival to mingle with his exultations 
at the elevation of Phocas. When we recollect that Mauritius, his 
wife, four sons and three daughters were immolated at the shrine of 
the ambition of Phocas because he feared a rival, we are astonished 
that saint Gregory could have called heaven and earth to rejoice in his 
exaltation to the throne of the Caesars. His words are : 

" Benignitatem vestrce pietatis ad imperiale fastigium pervenisse gaudemus. 
Leetentur coeli et exultet terra, et de vestris benignis actibus universce reipublicce 
populus nunc usque vehementer afSictus hilarescat," &c. Greg. I. xi. ep. 38, ind. vi. 

It is not so honorable to the successors of Boniface the third, that 
the title of pope in its supreme import, was conferred by so mean a 
wretch as Phocas the usuper and murderer, and rather as a reward for 
the temporizing and easy virtue of Gregory the first. Boniface, though 
in the catalogue of popes he stands the 66th in descent from Peter, was 
in truth the first pope of Rome in the sense which is placed in the 
Catechisms and standards of the present church of Rome. 

As yet the power was only ecclesiastic. But power is naturally 
cumulative, and especially ecclesiastic. Let any person be imagin- 
ed to wear at his girdle the keys of heaven, and the sword of spiritual 
power, let .him have kings and princes bowing at his footstool, and 
we shall soon see him like Napoleon, stretching out his hand not only 
to grasp the gorgeous crown of ecclesiastic but of political power. 

But to complete the story of the origin of the papal power we must 
add a few words on the assumptions of Saint Zachary, or Stephen the 
Second. Pepin the father of Charlemagne was in the cabinet of 
Childeric the king of France in those days. His master was a feeble 
prince and he was an ambitious minister. He knew, the power of the 
pope, and before he dared to seize the throne of his master he deemed 



BOMAX CATHOLIC RELIGION. 31 

it politic to consult the vicar of Christ. He placed himself before him 
in this casuistic style. " Sir," said he, " whether is he that has the 
name of prince without the power, or he who has the power without 
the name, the rightful sovereign of a nation ]" The pope answered 
him according to his wish. He was then absolved from all self cri- 
mination, he seized the crown of his master, and rewarded the pope 
with some temporal power : — certain states in Italy which by his son 
Charles the great were augmented, till he had the dominion of the 
ancient Heruli — the Ostrogoths and the Exarchate of Ravennah su- 
peradded to his spiritual jurisdiction. Then did he assume the triple 
crown and the two swords, and stood forth in full attire as filling all 
the prophetic characters of the supreme head of that politico-eccle 
siastic corporation called the church of Rome. — [Time expired.] 

Half past 3 o'clock, P. M. 
Bishop Purcell — 

Fellow citizens — My friend objects to my explanation of the term 
" Roman Catholic." He observes that it has turned out no explana- 
tion at all. His difficulty of apprehension on this particular point, is to 
me, however, perfectly intelligible. The very name of our church is 
a proof of its unity and universality ; and this, as he dislikes it, he 
cannot, of course, understand. The word ' catholic' in ancient days 
was used, as many other old and new words in Webster's dictionary, 
for more purposes than one. Its true and principal sense was easily 
ascertained in its application to the whole catholic church of Christ. 
It was also used to designate the authority of certain chief national 
churches, to distinguish them from inferior churches in the same dis- 
tricts, and to mark the superiority of archbishops and patriarchs over 
their brethren in the E piscopacy. The name of " Roman Catholic" 
shewed the bond of union which bound all these various churches in 
the profession of the faith of the chief see of the entire christian 
world. Hence it always brought to the believer's mind, in every 
clime, the church which was the head, — the great, primitive, senior 
church, the church of Rome ; and as more people became converted 
to the faith, they were called by their different and distinct appella- 
tions, as English Roman Catholics — American Roman Catholics — 
French Roman Catholics, &c. 

As to the prohibition from calling any man ■ Father, f &c. I said it 
was not meant literally, and this he seizes as an admission that it is 
a prohibition from calling " Father" in an ecclesiastical sense. This 
may be true or not, but it does not prohibit us from calling the head 
of our church " father" as one who cherishes, instructs, and otherwise 
acts the part of a father towards us ; as he who adopts an orphan 
child is, in a figurative sense, his father, though not literally married 
to his mother. The gentleman cannot therefore understand me as 
admitting his argument in my previous explanation. But this is mat- 
ter too insignificant to waste more time on it. 

Mr. Campbell tells us the church had no head for 600 years. This 
is a strange representation ! The church was then a headless body. 
I never heard of a body without a head, on which all the members 
depend for the vital influences. But was there indeed no head to the 
church ] Was not Jesus Christ the head 1 and I say further that his 
servant on earth, his humble servant, was the pope. The language 
cf Christ himself, " en this rock will I build my church," refers not 



32 DEBATE ON THE 

to the divine head of the church in Heaven, but to the representative 
of his divine commission on earth. I affirm that what Christ thought 
necessary in the days of the apostles, is necessary now ; and the 
more remote we are from that day, the more necessary does it become. 
Jesus Christ well knew that there must be scandals and errors ; and 
he determined his church should not be left headless. We know this 
head exists and where it resides ; but we are not slaves in the Ca- 
tholic church. We acknowledge no mere human authority between 
us and God. We are as free and untrammeled as any people under 
heaven. It is not the man, but the authority, we respect. The man 
may err, and if the pope claims a power not belonging to him, we 
/ soon remind him of his mistake. How this lesson has been taught 
to a few popes, the history of the church will show. 

My friend now contradicts the statement he made to-day. He first 
argued that the introduction of patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, 
deacons, and so on, into the church, was of exotic growth — and, as if he 
had forgotten what he had previously denied, he turns round, and tells 
us, nearly in the same breath, that he goes for bishops and deacons and 
orders. So far then, Mr. Campbell is a good Catholic, and I congra- 
tulate him on this advance towards the truth. [Symptoms of applause 
in the andience, were here manifested, but were immediately checked 
by the moderators ; and bishop Purcell besought them, once for all, 
to abstain from the least demonstration of the kind during the debate. 
It was improper in a discussion of this character, and the house being 
greatly crowded, much inconvenience would follow, and the debate 
could not go on.] 

As to the authority he has produced here (Du Pin's Ecclesiastical 
history) I will remark that I consider Du Pin a learned man. I would 
even select him as a splendid illustration of the strength imparted to 
the human intellect by the Catholic intellectual discipline. He was 
truly a prodigy of learning and of precision of style. But there was 
a plague spot, a gangrene upon him, which must forever neutralize his 
authority as a Catholic. Before the gentleman pronounced his name 
we had a flourish of rhetoric, and a labored eulogy upon my tact in 
managing this controversy. For my part, I must say that I am quite 
a novice in these matters — I am not accustomed to debate. My friend 
has complimented me upon oratorical powers to which I lay no claim. 
If I have any advantage, I owe it not to practice but to the force of truth. 

DuPin, on whom my friend relies as Catholic authority, recognized 
by the church, was in constant correspondence with Wake, the arch- 
bishop of Canterbury. He tried every stratagem to bring about a 
re-union of the church of England, and the church of Rome. Leib- 
nitz, and many a distinguished name, had previously labored in the 
same vocation. But Revd. Dr. Du Pin's motives were, unfortunately, 
suspicious. He proposed as the basis of the re-union, the abolition 
of auricular confession, of religious vows, of the Lenten fast and ab- 
stinence, of the pope's supremacy, and of the celibacy of the clergy 
He was himself, like Cranmer, secretly married ; and after his death 
his pretended wife came publicly forward to assert her right to his 
goods and chattels. And this is Catholic authority ! 

It is said these papers were discovered in his study after his death. 
But he was censured by pope Clement XL even during his life-time ; 
and when, as I have stated, Louis XIV. removed him from among the 
Doctors of the Sorbonne, Clement approved the act. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 33 

If my friend can produce Roman Catholic authority, let him do so. 
But let him not produce one that approaches with a mask. The 
authority of Du Pin I have challenged on just grounds ; but this has 
nothing to do with the views I have stated upon the great question 
we are discussing. 

We are told that the commission spoken of in Ephesians, 4th 
chapter, " To some he gave apostles, &c." confers, not powers, but 
simply gifts. This I deny. St. Paul tells us authority was given to 
the rulers of his church by Christ, not for their sakes but that we may 
be no longer children tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. They 
were not, then, merely gifts, they were powers and authorities to re- 
gulate the church, and to rule the people of God. These commissions 
are the foundation of the church established on earth by Christ, before 
he ascended on high. They were necessary, as the more solid parts 
of a temple are first laid, that the whole building may afterwards 
have strength, consistency, and symmetry. I deny that the church 
ever has been or could be without a foundation. The foundation is 
at least as necessary as the superstructure. Christ made Peter, there- 
fore, the rock of his church, and was himself the corner stone whereon 
that rock rested, as did the whole edifice securely rest upon the rock. 

Why has Mr. Campbell anticipated the subject of the third or 
fourth day of this discussion, and brought up the pope as the man of 
sin — the sea monster of Daniel — the youngest horn of the beast 1 &c. 
For aught I know, he may prove the pope to be the sea serpent — no 
doubt his powers of logic are adequate to the task. We shall see. 

Again — the pope is not a tyrant, nor does he claim the title of Uni- 
versal Father, in the sense in which Gregory rebuked John for claiming 
it. Mr. Campbell has solved the question beforehand, in stating the 
arrogant pretensions of the bishop of C. P. who pretended that all au- 
thority proceeded from him. I do not derive all my authority from the 
pope. The bishops of the United States consult together. They propose 
candidates for the vacant sees ; and they send to Rome the names of 
three clergymen, marked according to their judgment, " Worthy, 
Worthier, Worthiest." The pope generally trusts to their wisdom, 
and acquiesces in their choice. It was thus that a certain testimony 
of my fitness to succeed the venerable Fenwick, as bishop of this 
diocese, was forwarded to Rome. The sovereign pontiff, Gregory 
XVI. ratified the selection of the prelacy of the United States, and 
expedited the brief, or letters, in virtue of which I was ordained a 
bishop ; but my power to consecrate, to baptize, and to perform other 
episcopal functions, comes not from the pope ; it comes like that of 
the apostles, directly from God. 

There are other denominations, besides the Catholic, that contend 
for the necessity of apostolical succession of orders and mission, and 
these too are the objects of my friend's sarcasm. I select only two — 
the Episcopalians and the German Reformed. 

In the last number of his Millennial Harbinger, in speaking of the 
Episcopalian bishop Otey of Tennessee, he asks "why is bishop Otey 
silent ] He either feels that his castle of Episcopalianism has been 
demolished by the editor of the Harbinger (Mr. Campbell) or he does 
not. If he feels that it has been overthrown, as an honest man he 
ought to acknowledge it. But if he still thinks that he is adorning 
" the doctrine of GooV by sustaining Episcopalianism, let him shew 
his strength to such as wish to read both sides of the question. It is 



34 DEBATE OjN t THE 

an apostolic admonition to " contend earnestly for the faith delivered 
to the saints." If he is sent of God, as he professes to be, as a faith- 
ful watchman on Zion's walls, he should not remain mute ; but cry 
aloud, seeing his opinions have been politely assailed. Percontator." 

Answer.— Many reasons might be imagined for bishop Otey's si- 
lence, but I will venture upon only one, viz. that like M. de La Motte 
(I presume the witty and pious bishop of Amiens) he is waiting for a 
reply to his silence. How, &c. 

Again — Mr. Lancellot Bell, addressing the editor, Mr. Campbell 
(vid. Mil. Harbinger, p. 570.) says "I accompanied brother L. to 
Cavetown, where he addressed the citizens, &c. Two of the " called 
and sent" of the German Reformed church, considering, I suppose, 
their " craft in danger," came to the place, and I spoke against these 
things, contradicting, who were going — to express it in the language 
of some of the people, to " lick us up like salt," &c. &c. 

Mr. Campbell, therefore, has changed his tone ; he is now in favor 
of orders ; and this change has apparently taken place within a few 
days. 

I have proved that the headship of the church was no new thing 
in the beginning of the fourth century. Du Pin spoke of the decision 
of the council of Nice, respecting the contest between the bishops 
of Alexandria and of Rome, but said that this decision of the council 
did not disprove the primacy of Rome, so that this doctrine is at least 
as old as the year SL18, when Sylvester of Rome presided by his 
legate Osius of Cordova at the council of Nice. This shows that the 
authority of Rome was then recognized. He spoke of the council of 
Chalcedon. I have here an authentic historian recognized by the Ca- 
tholics, and one who tells sharp truths of individual Catholics, when 
he conceives them to be in the wrong. It is Barronius. In his Annals, 
year of Christ 451, of pope Leo, 12th, twenty seventh of Valentine and 
2nd of Marcian, he says that in this council the authority of the see 
of Peter was recognized. 360 bishops met in this council. Circum- 
stances not permitting pope Leo to assist at it in person, he sent three 
legates, two bishops and a priest, to preside in his name. At the first 
session Paschasinus, bishop of Lillibeum, and one of the legates of the 
pope, preferred charges against Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, for 
his uncanonical conduct in the conventicle of Ephesus. 

Dioscorus, thus accused and convicted, was compelled to leave his 
seat and sit in an inferior place in the middle of the assembly. Sub- 
sequently a sentence of deposition was pronounced against him ; and 
as his guilt was manifest, he left the assembly and appeared no more. 
The fathers of the council unanimously exclaimed that the doctrinal 
decisions of Leo were those of Peter himself — " Petrus per Leonem 
locutus est" — Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo. (vid. Reeves, 
1st vol. 263.) the fathers of the council directed to St. Leo a synodical 
letter, in which they acknowledge him for the interpreter of St. Peter, 
for their head and guide." (vid. Barronius, ibid.) Nowhere is the au- 
thority of the first general council of Nice, as quoted by Labbe. 
Greek bishops say: 

COUNCILS. 
"The Roman church has always had the primacy ." (Labbe, t. 2. p. 41.) 
The second general council and first of Constantinople says : 
"Let the bishop of Constantinople have the first share of honor after the bish- 
op of Rome." (Alexandria was entitled to the second rank.) 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 35 

The third general council of Ephesus says : 

44 St. Peter, the prince and head of the apostles, the foundation of the Catholic 
church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, and the 
power of loosing- and of binding sin was given to him, which to the present 
time, as it ever has done, subsists and exercises judgment in his successors." 

The fourth general council of Chalcedon, writing to St. Leo, says : 

44 We therefore entreat you, to honor our judgment by your decrees; and as we 
have adhered to our head in good things, so let your supremacy supply what 
becometh (or is wanting) for thy children." 

The council of Florence in which the Greek and Latin bishops were 
present, thus speaks : 

44 We define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold the prima- 
cy over the entire earth, and that he is the successor of the blessed Peter, the 
prince of the apostles, the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole church," 
&c. T. 13. p. 515. 

The general council of Trent, speaks in the following terms : 

44 The sovereign pontiffs, in virtue of the supreme power delivered to them 
over the entire church, had a right to reserve the judgment of certain more 
grievous crimes to their own tribunal." 

Melancthon holds the following language, as quoted by Bossuet in 
his history of the variations. L. 5, n. 24. 

44 Our people agree, that the ecclesiastical polity, in which are recognized 
superior bishops of many churches and the bishop of Rome superior to all bish- 
ops, is permitted. Thus there is no contest respecting the supremacy of the 
{jope and the authority of bishops, and also the pope and the bishops could easi- 
y preserve this authority, for it is necessary for a church to have leaders to 
maintain order, to keep an eye upon those called to the ecclesiastical state, and 
upon the doctrine of the priests, and to exercise ecclesiastical judgment, so that 
if there were no bishops we would have to make them. The monarchy of the 
pope would also serve much to preserve amongst many nations the unity of 
doctrine; wherefore we could easily agree as to the supremacy of the pope if we 
could agree in every thing else." 

Leibnitz, as quoted by De Starck, p. 22, speaks as follows : 

44 As God is the God of order, and as by divine appointment, the body of the 
only, apostolic, Catholic church can be maintained by a single, hierarchical and 
universal government, it follows, that there must be a supreme spiritual chief, 
who shall be confined within proper bounds, established by the same (divine) 
right, and invested with all the power and dictatorial authority necessary for 
the preservation of the church." 

FATHERS. 

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, the disciple of St. Polycarp, who himself ap- 
pears to have been consecrated by St. John the Evangelist, repeatedly 
urges this argument against his contemporary heretics. He says : 

44 We can count up those who were appointed bishops in the churches by 
the apostles and their successors down to us, none of whom taught this doctrine. 
But as it would be tedious to enumerate the succession of bishops in the differ- 
ent churches, we refer you to the tradition of that greatest, most ancient, and 
universally known church, founded at Rome by St. Peter and St. Paul, and 
which has been preserved therethrough the succession of its bishops, down to 
the present time." 

Tertullian, who also flourished in the same century (year 150), argues 
in the same manner and challenges certain heretics in these terms : 

" Let them produce the origin of their church; let them display the succession 
of their bishops, so that the first of them may appear to have been ordained by 
an apostolic man, who persevered in their communion." 

St. Athanasius writes to St. Felix, the Roman Pontiff: 

44 For this purpose Christ placed you and your predecessors to guide the ark 
and to have the care of all the churches, that you may help us." 

St. Cyprian, in his 55th Epistle, holds the following language: 

44 They dare to sail and carry letters to the chair of Peter and the principal 
church, whence sacerdotal unity proceeds." 



36 DEBATE ON THE 

St. Augustin, who wrote in the fifth century, mentions the following 
among other motives of credibility in favor of the Catholic religion. 

"There are many other thing's which keep me in the bosom of the Catholic 
church. The agreement of different people and nations keeps me there. The 
authority established by miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, and 
confirmed by antiquity, keeps me there. The succession of bishops in the see of 
St. Peter, the apostle (to whom our Lord after his resurrection, committed his 
sheep to be fed) down to the present bishop, keeps me there. Finally the very 
name of Catholic which, among so many heresies, this church alone possesses, 
keeps me there." 

St. Jerome in his 4th Epistle to pope Damasus says: 

"I, following no leader but Christ, am in communion with your holiness, that 
is, with the chair of Peter. Whoever gathereth not with you'scattereth, that is, 
whoever is not of Christ is of anti-Christ." 

This is, in substance, the testimony of the bishops throughout the 
world, in every age to the present time. — [Time expired.] 

Four o'clock, P. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

On the subject of the emendation of the term Roman Catholic, by 
prefixing the word English, &c, I am willing that my friend should 
have all the advantage to be derived from that explanation. I am 
willing that he should appear before the public with that explanation, 
if he thinks it can help the matter. Oa the same principle he may 
say the Philadelphia Pittsburg church of Cincinnati. The church, 
I argued, had no mortal head for six hundred years. He certainly 
could not have understood me as denying that Christ was the head 
of his church ! I admit that Christ is the immortal head of the church 
which is his body, and Christ is her only head. Christ's church re- 
quires a living and omnipresent head. She needs not two heads, for 
her head is the head of all principality and power. Can the pope be 
omnipresent, keeping order in all his dominions 1 

I was surprised at the gentleman's hypothesis, that if I argued that 
the church had no visible and human head for six hundred years, I 
then asserted that Christ was not the head of his church. I spoke 
not of Christ, but of the great hierarch on earth, who claims to be the 
fountain of all power and authority in the church. Could he not 
understand me 1 

The gentleman says, that the Catholics are as free as others. I ask 
have they the same liberty to read the Bible, to think and act for 
themselves, as have the Protestants ] I am sorry that he seemed to 
take advantage of my acknowledging myself a friend to bishops and 
deacons in the church. In my enumeration of the different orders, in 
the present Roman church, I mentioned Arch-bishops and »#rcA-deacons ; 
but he did not hear me say bishops and deacons. They were on pur- 
pose left out of that enumeration, that I might not fall into the error 
which he has imagined for me. 

I dispose of the gentleman's extract from the Millennial Harbinger 
and of his learned remarks upon them, by informing him that he has 
mistaken the writer : I am not the author of the article in question. 

Still I must ask, why this evasion of the question in debate ] Why 
seek to excite the odium theologicum, on account of some distorted 
theory unjustly attributed to me — on subjects, too, wholly foreign to 
this debate ! Are these the weapons by which my learned opponent 
is compelled to defend the " mother and mistress of all churches" from 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 37 

the charge of unscriptural, and unfounded assumptions ? Let no one 
imagine, however, that I am at all opposed to order and government 
in the church. As far as concerns oversight, or the having of bishops 
to preside over the flock, I am an Episcopalian. I am for having pres- 
byters or elders in every church. I do not believe in a church without 
presbyters or bishops. So far I am both a Presbyterian and an Epis- 
copalian. 

On the subject of the primacy of Rome, the gentleman quoted Bar- 
ronius, and snarled at I)u Pin. But it is too late for any bishop of 
Rome, or of England to stand up in this nineteenth century and tell L 
us that Du Pin is not an authentic historian. My friend intimates 
that the certificates in the preface were suborned. What a charge on 
the learned and venerable author of this work ! 

[Bishop Purcell here said, that those certificates being in the book pro- 
ved nothing : — that they might have been put there by the printer."] 

I will now read these attestations and vouchers that you may judge 
how gratuitous are the objections and insinuations of the bishop. 

THE APPROBATION OF THE DOCTORS OF THE SOREONNE. 
"The whoJe world has openly declared the esteem which they think due to 
the New History of Ecclesiastical Writers, that w r e could not but be sensible 
of the complaisance shew 7 n to us, since the judgment we had formed of it was 
followed, supported and authorized by that of the public. 
# * * # . * % * * * * 

"All those who have already read them, will here find what will recall to their 
memory many things they may have forgotten, and will see with pleasure, that 
our author has reduced their doctrines to certain principles, by which they show 
their solidity and coherence. Those who wish to read them will here meet 
with what will save them much time and trouble; and those that are engaged in 
that long and wearisome journey, will at least have the advantage of a faithful 
and experienced guide, who will lead them only through paths equally- safe and 
known. Both the one and the other will meet w r ith a piece of criticism which 
is always clear, prudent, and upright; distinguishes what is certain from that 
which is false or doubtful; never precipitates the judgment, nor lavs down sim- 
ple conjectures in place of demonstrative proofs; gives to every thing what it 
merits, purely on its own account ; and the better to attend to reason, banishes 
all prejudices and looks at nothing in its search after truth, but truth itself; nor 
condemns, only, where it cannot excuse. 

"Given at Paris, August 18th, 1683. 

BLAMPIGNON, Rector of St. Merris. 
HIDEUX, Rector of St. Innocents." 

APPROBATION OF THE ROYAL CENSOR. 

" By the order of my lord Chancellor; I have read a book, entitled "A History 
of the church and of Ecclesiastical Authors in the sixteenth century " by Mes- 
sieur Lewis Ellies Du Pin, Priest, Doctor of Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, 
and Regius Professor of Philosophy: Containing the History of the Church, 
and of ecclesiastical Authors, and from the year 1550, to the year 1600; in 
which I find nothing to hinder its being printed. 

•« Given this 18th day of January, 1703. 

BLAMPIGNOJN T , Curate of St. Merris." 

APPROBATION OF THE DOCTORS OF DIVINITY OF THE FACULTY OF PARIS. 

" We whose names are under written, Doctors of Divinity of the Faculty of 
Divinity of Paris, certify, that we have examined a book, entitled "A History 
of the Church, and of ecclesiastical Authors, in the sixteenth century;" by Mes- 
sieur Lewis Ellies Du Pin, Priest, Doctor of Divinity of the Faculty ot Pans, 
and Regius Professor of Philosophy : and that we have found nothing therein 
contrary to the Catholic faith, or to good manners. In assurance whereof, we 
have set our hands this 20th day of January, 1703. 

BLAMPIGNON, Curate of St. Merris. 

HIDEUX, Curate of St. Innocents." 



38 DEBATE ON THE 

I put it now to the good sense of my audience, whether such testi- 
monies are to be set aside, by saying that the printer may have forged 
or printed them on his own responsibility. 

The divine warrant for the primacy of the pope is not the question 
on which the gentleman read from Barronius. There are two things 
in every history, — the statement of facts, and the comment on those 
facts. The opinion of the historian is like the opinion of the reader ; 
but the facts stated are common property ; and these are the proper 
materials of his work. Barronius does not, however, on the point in 
debate, state a fact contrary to Du Pin. There were, indeed, prima- 
cies at Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem. But 
the primacy of a metropolitan, and the doctrine of an universal pri- 
macy over all metropolitans at any one place, is a different matter. I 
could not understand in what sense he meant to be understood when 
he said Gregory could not go for primacy in " that sense." Was 
there a peculiar mysterious meaning attached to the claim or title 
which Gregory reprobated ] It has not been proved that any contem- 
porary understood it so. I affirm that there was not an intelligent 
Catholic of that day who understood the title of universal patriarch, 
in any other sense than that in which, it is understood among us now. 
The person first established in the primacy of Rome exercised a uni- 
versal superintendency over the church exactly similar to that first 
claimed by the bishop of Constantinople. 

My friend says, ' the author from whom he read you states the fact 
of such a primacy early in the Roman Church.' If we examine the 
authority we shall see, it is nothing but the opinion of a fallible man ; 
and that opinion contrary to all ancient history. I affirm that there 
is no ecclesiastical historian of authority, who attests the fact, which 
he is desirous to prove. It is one thing to state a fact, as a historian, 
and another to state an opinion or commentary on a fact. The ques- 
tion before us, is not the metropolitan primacy of Rome, or Antioch, 
or Alexandria ; but the universal primacy of the whole church ! 

I admit, as to the council of Nice, what it was said Du Pin asser- 
ted, viz. ' that the sixth canon does not deny the primacy of Rome.' 
But Du Pin goes further, — (and why did not the gentleman read all 
that Du Pin asserts]) I read it all. I told the whole truth respect- 
ing it — the gentleman has told you but the half of it — Du Pin says 
" this canon does not preclude the idea :" but " neither" says he, "docs 
it establish it" I am for quoting the whole authority. Du Pin, as a 
Catholic, was endeavoring to find some authority for supporting the 
antiquity of the primacy of the see of Rome. He is examining the 
canons of the council carefully, and he says that though this canon 
does not preclude the primacy, "yet neither does it establish it." 
It afforded him nothing for or against it. And what other decree or 
council did establish it 1 ! That is a secret the bishop will never 
reveal. 

Let us now return to my argument. I left off at the year 750, and 
was in pursuit of the day, when the present church of Rome began. 
I hasten to establish it. 

It would be both tedious and unnecessary to read, or narrate the 
quarrels between Nicholas of Rome and Photius of Constantinople, 
on the vital question who shall be the greatest ] which greatly pre- 
pared the way for the grand schism. We have not time for this, as 
we are now, before we sit down, to orive you the day and date of the 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 39 

separation of the Roman church from the Greek church, which must >' * 
be regarded as the day of her separate existence, when she became 
what she now is, a schism, or sect. 

There was a violent contest between the patriarch of Constantinople 
and the patriarch of Rome, or pope, if you please, (for I state em- 
phatically, that the idea of a supreme head of the church had never 
been digested in the east, and though the eastern church may have 
submitted, or acquiesced for the time being, she never did consent to 
it). The promotion of the layman Photius, gifted and splendid as ' 
he was, to the primacy of Constantinople, greatly vexed his holiness 
of Rome. Indeed, from the time of Victor, bishop of Rome, A. D. 
197, who assumed to exercise jurisdiction out of his proper diocese, 
in respect to the observance of Easter, there never was a cordial feel- 
ing of unity, or co-operation between the eastern and western por- 
tions of the church. The arrogance of Victor, called for strong ex- 
pressions of insubordination on the part of the Asiatic brethren, who 
claimed for themselves as much license to dictate to the western, as 
he had to the eastern church. 

The " Catholic" body was not yet divided into two great masses. 
Photius had charge of the church of Constantinople. Nicholas of 
Rome was indignant that a layman should hold the high dignity of 
patriarch of the eastern church, however the emperor and the church 
might think. To make matters worse, they excommunicated each 
other, which laid the foundation of dissentious and bad feelings, which 
to this very day, never have been atoned. For the jealousies and ri- 
valries of these two bishops never slumbered nor slept, till the church 
was divided into what have since been called the Greek and Latin 
churches. All historians, give substantially the same account of this 
matter. I will read an extract or two from Du Pin. 

"Though the Latin and Greek churches were not in close communion with each 
other ever since the affair of Photius, yet they did not proceed to an open rup- 
ture till the time of pope Leo IX. and of Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Con- 
stantinople. This breach began by a letter which the latter wrote in the year 
1053, in his own name, and in the name of Leo archbishop of Acridia and. of 
all Bulgaria, to John bishop of Trani in Apulia, that he might communicate it 
to the pope and to all the western church. In this letter they reproved the Lat- 
ins, (1) Because they made use of unleavened bread in the celebration of the 
eucharist. (2) Because they fasted on Saturdays in Lent. (3) Because they 
eat the blood of beasts, and things strangled. (4) Because they did not sing 
Allehdah in Lent." &c. &c. Vol. ii. p. 234. 

The patriarch of Constantinople first anathematized Leo IX. ec- 
clesiastically cursed him and his party, and this may have provoked 
severer measures against the Greeks than were at first contemplated 
by the Latins. It is, however, an important fact, that the Greeks were 
the first excommunicators. 

The pope of Rome sent three legates to Constantinople, under pre- 
tence of healing the divisions and strifes existing, who had, secretly 
in their pockets, a bull of excommunication against the patriarch and 
his party. They were instructed to exhort him to yield ; but if they 
found him incorrigible, they were to fulminate against him the dread 
anathema. After a fruitless attempt to bring over the patriarch by 
mild means, they entered the church of St. Sophia, at noon day, on 
the 16th of July, in the year 1054, and mounting the altar read aloud 
the bull of excommunication, before the people, and then departed, 
shaking off the dust of their feet against the patriarch, his city and 
people. The bull speaks on this wise ; 



40 DEBATE ON THE 

u The Holy Apostolic see of Rome, which is the chief of the whole world, 
to which as to the head belongs in a more especial manner the care of all the 
churches; has sent us to this royal city in the quality of its legates, for the welfare 
and peace of the church, that as it is written, we should go down and see whe- 
ther the cries which pierce its ears from this great city be true or no. 

Let therefore the emperors, clergy, senate and people of this city of Constan- 
tinople know, that we have here found more good to excite our joy, than evil 
to raise our sorrow. For as to the supporters of the empire, and the principal 
citizens, the city is wholly christian and orthodox: but as for Michael, who 
took upon him the false title of patriarch, and his adherents, we have 
found that they have sown discord and heresy in the midst of this city * 
* * because they rebaptized, as did the Arians, those who had been bap- 
tized in the name of the blessed trinity, and particularly the Latins; because 
with the Donatists they maintain that the Greek church is the only true church, 
and that the sacrifices and baptism of none else are valid." 

% # % % % % % # 

The Greek church, be it noted with all distinctness, did stand upon 
this point, that she was the only true church ,- and that no ordinance, 
baptism or the eucharist, was at all valid, unless administered by her au- 
thority, 

I will read a little further : 

" Michael having been advertized of these errors" &c.&c. " refused to appear 
before, or to have any conference with us, and has likewise forbad our entrance 
into the churches to perform divine service therein forasmuch as he had for- 
merly shut up the churches of the Latins, calling them Azymitce, persecuting 
and excommunicating them, all which reflected on the holy see, in contempt 
whereof he styled himself (Ecumenical or Universal Patriarch. Where- 
fore not being able any longer to tolerate such an unheard of abuse as was of- 
fered to the holy apostolical see, and looking upon it as a violation of the Ca- 
tholic faith in several instances, &c, " We do subscribe to the anathema which 
our most holy father the pope has denounced against Michael and his adhe- 
rents, if they do not«retract their errors." &c. Id. ib. p. 236. 

If then, there be any truth in history, from that day the present 
sect of the church of Rome began its existence. 

It never was fully, or cordially conceded by the Greek church, that 
the pope was, or ought to be, the universal father ; and it may be 
affirmed in all truth, that this was the real cause of the schism. 

To recapitulate, thus far, in seeking for the papal head, so essen- 
tial to the Roman church, we find it not in the New Testament, in 
the ancient fathers, in the canons of the first general councils, nor in 
the history of the church, till the commencement of the seventh cen- 
tury. On the authority of Barronius, it is said that Phocas gave the 
title to Boniface the 3rd in the year 606. We have also seen, that 
Pepin, another usurper, gave temporal estates and political dominion 
to the popes about the middle of the 8th century, and that on the 16th 
of July 1054 the Western or Roman half of the church, after having 
been first anathematized by the Eastern or Greek half, did solemnly 
separate itself from the communion of the Greek church by an 
anathema. Hence, both the origin and the name of the church of 
Rome. — [Time expired.] 

Half-past 4 o'clock, P. M. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

My friend Mr. Campbell has fought a noble battle for me. I shall 
prove that presently. Gibbon was an infidel, and became so be- 
cause his father would not allow him to embrace the Roman Cath- 
olic faith. He was a prodigy of mind, and his intellect was so 
precocious that even when only sixteen years old, he read, I think 



ROMAN CATnOLIC RELIGION. 41 

it was, Bossuet's Universal History, by which he was convinced of 
the truth of the Catholic religion. His father (sad proof of the re- 
straints on liberty of conscience, as exemplified in Protestant commu- 
nities) persecuted him for this, and sent him to Lausanne, in Switzer- 
land, where, under the close surveillance of Pavillard a Calvinist 
minister, he was confined, debarred the reading of Catholic books, 
and fed on bread and water, till at last he yielded his creed for better 
fare. He thus became an infidel, and wrote against all religions. 
But a man who could thus shrink from duty to that faith which he 
believed true, because he was persecuted, was not fit to appreciate the 
beauty of the religion that had attracted him ; nor the sublime testi- 
mony rendered to its divinity by its martyrs' blood. If he could 
thus prove recreant to the only one which he loved, no wonder he be- 
came opposed to all. 

Such are the authorities against which I have to militate. 

The gentleman told us that he would put his finger upon the precise 
day and date, as recorded in history, when the Roman church separa- 
ted from the holy and ancient apostolic church, but he has not kept his 
word. I warrant that that pledge will never be redeemed. (Mr. 
Campbell here explained that he had fixed it at the 16th July, 1054.) 
If then the Catholic church ceased to be the true church in 1054, 
where was the church of Christ? "Where was the true Catholic church, 
from which the Roman Catholic church separated? "Behold I am 
always with you," says Christ, " and I will send you another Para- 
clete who will abide with you all days." Matth. xxviii. 20. 

If the true church was no where — if Christ had no witness on earth, 
his promises have failed ; and Revelation is a solecism. A church, 
unless it be conspicuous, unless every enquirer can have access to it, 
is of no use as a witness of truth to mankind. If hid, how can it 
testify of the true doctrine of Christ to all nations 1 But mark the 
splendid testimony in favor of the purity and watchfulness of the 
Roman Catholic church, afforded by history. How did the schism 
of the Greek church begin 1 A layman Photius intruded and de- 
clared himself the head of the church*. This single fact is a splendid 
argument of itself, to prove the necessity of a supreme head to watch 
over the church. To use a Scriptural phrase, he was like a faithful 
sentinel upon the walls of Zion, to sound the warning to the world, 
or, if you will, not to resemble "a dumb dog," but to bark at the approach 
of the thief, who came not in at the gate, but came by another way 
into the fold, and he did bark at him ; and Photius and Michael Ceru- 
larius and other Greek intruders and errorists, not content with as- 
suming a power not belonging to them, actually cursed and anathe- 
matized the pope of Rome, a proof perhaps of the amiable character 
the gentleman gives the enemies of order and of the pope, but a suf- 
ficient reason why the pope should exert all his authority in protect- 
ing the church from their usurpations. 

But the three legates to whom the commission was entrusted, car- 
ried the bull of excommunication in their pockets, and they are made 
to appear very treacherous because they did not produce it at once, 
but tried by pacific measures to bring about a reconciliation. Is it in 
the gentleman's estimation, then, an evidence of treachery, to resort to 
persuasive means with an enemy, before appealing to the sword and 
involving one's country in war ? Suppose the president of the United 
States sends a minister to a foreign country to obtain the settlement 
D 2 6 



42 DEBATE OX THE 

of a disputed question. Does that minister begin by declaring war, 
by forcing his proposal with a bayonet down the throats of the peo- 
ple to whom he is accredited 1 No, he tries every mild means first. 
The contrary course would be neither politic ncr wise, neither humane 
nor in accordance with the rules of civilized society. The great and 
the peculiar character of the people of the United States, is neither 
to provoke nor to brook aggression. If her rights are violated, she 
endeavors to convince the violator of his injustice, to disabuse him 
of his error, to win him back to a sense of rectitude by persuasion 
and just remonstrance. If this fails, she resorts to arms, and though 
she loves peace she is prepared for war. In a word she is terribly 
peaceful. Now mark the course of the legates. They entreat Michael 
to reconsider his conduct, they urge every argument that zeal can sug- 
gest, but finding all their efforts fruitless, they afterwards act in pur- 
suance of their instructions, with perfect ingenuousness and openness. 
Observe their procedure. They ascend the altar of the great church 
of St. Sophia; the seventh wonder of the world — at whose portals 
stood that large vase for the holy water, wherewith Greeks and Ro- 
mans, commemorating the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, by which 
our consciences are purified from dead works to serve the living God, 
were accustomed alike to bless themselves; and on which were in- 
scribed the Greek words "Niko-ov Avijunjuzr* /u» jucvzi o-^lv" " purify 
God, our transgressions, and not our countenance only." They went 
on the altar and in a formal speech explained to the assembled multi- 
tude what were the grounds of the anathema. The crime of Mi- 
chael was that in defiance of the prohibitions both of the old and new 
law, he had made eunuchs priests. He was also accused of Arian- 
ism. Now the Arians deny the divinity of Christ — I have heard 
from some of our most respectable citizens, that Mr. Campbell also 
denies that cardinal dogma, but I do not vouch for the correctness of 
their assertion. (Mr. Campbell here stated that he did not deny the 
divinity of Christ.) 

It appears pretty plain from^ history that the people were for the 
legates and opposed to their own usurping archbishop. Why 1 " The 
legates flattered them." But how 1 So far from it their whole argument 
was directed against a man living amongst this very people, and for 
an individual far distant. It is natural to suppose that the people 
were prejudiced in favor of their own archbishop and against one who 
was a stranger to them. In short, were they not speaking against the 
primacy and the assumptions of the ecclesiastical dignitary of the 
very church in which they spoke, and of the very people to whom they 
spoke. Did they flatter the clergy 1 no ; they strongly inveighed 
against the unscriptural and uncanonical ordination of the odious eu- 
nuchs, by whom the patriarch was surrounded. This was a fine il- 
lustration of the zeal for sound doctrine and discipline, displayed in 
every previous and subsequent age by the holy see. It was acting 
on the apostolic maxim — It is better to obey God than man — That 
duties are ours and consequences are God's. 

" Oh Timothy, guard the deposit" (of faith) said St. Paul. 

"Now the spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times, some shall depart 
from the faith, giving- heed to spirits of error, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having 
their consciences seared with a red hot iron. These things proposing to the 
brethren thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the 
words of the faith and of the good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained." — 
let Ep. to Tim. ch. iv. v. 1. 2. 6. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. \ 43 

Thus on this occasion did the pope, \ 

My friend could not understand in what sensb t] ie patriarch oft* on* 
stantinople claimed the title of universal bishop ; ane. A. V anted to Wrn 
how his claim differed from the present understanding ^r ,l Ac^o 
He has the answer in this history of facts. He has, or his ^tw^ty 
Du Pin has for him, admitted that this Michael had said in effect*^ 
he was Lord God over all the earth; and that there was no authoriij 
without his sanction for any officer of the church to perform any cf 
the ordinances of religion. Even the pope of Rome must crouch to 
his feet before he could administer the eucharist or even baptize an 
infant. And the historian says that the document accusing the arch- 
bishop was read before the people of Constantinople — the very city 
where he reigned, where he was known, and where all the facts of 
the case were before them. What is the most natural supposition 1 
Surely this ; that if that document had not been true the people would 
have cried out against it ; — they would not have assented to it. So 
that all this is a splendid triumph of the supremacy of the Roman see. 
But why refer to particular instances, when ecclesiastical history is 
full of appeals made to the bishop of Rome by all the other bishops 
of Christendom, and all acquiescing in his decision as not only the de- 
cision of Peter, but of Christ himself. " The extraordinary commis- 
sion given to Paul," says Bossuet, " expired with him in Rome, and 
blending with the authority of Peter, to which it was subordinate, 
raised the Roman see to the height of authority and glory. This is 
the church which, taught by Peter and his successors, has never been 
infected with heresy. This powder of binding and loosing from sin, 
was given first to Peter and then to the rest of the twelve apostles. 
For it was manifestly the design of Jesus Christ, to place first in one 
what he afterwards intended to confer on many, but the sequel impairs 
not the commencement, nor does the first lose his place. All receive 
the same power from the same source, but not all in the same degree, 
nor to the same extent, for Jesus Christ communicates himself as he 
pleases, and always in the manner best calculated to establish the uni- 
ty of the church." " Peter," says St. Augustin, " who, in the honor 
of his primacy, represented the entire church, first and alone, receives 
the keys, which were next to be communicated to all the others." The 
reason of this is assigned by St. Covaives of Aries, that the ecclesiastical 
authority, first established in a single bishop, and afterwards diffused 
among many, may be forever brought back to the principle of unit)^ 
and remain inseparably united in the same chair.' This is the Roman 
chair, the chair of Peter so much celebrated by the Fathers, in which 
they vied with one another in extolling the principality of the apostolic 
chair, the principal principality, the source of unity, the mother 
church, the head (or centre) of the episcopacy, whence parts the ray of 
government, the chief, the only see which bindeth all in unity." 

In these words you hear Optatus, St. Augustin, St. Cyprian, St. 
Irenasus, St. Prosper, St. Avitus, Theodoret, the council ofChalcedon, 
Africa and Gaul, Greece and Asia, the east and the west united toge- 
ther. This is the doctrine of all the church ; this is its unity and 
strength. Here all is strong because all is divine, all is united. And 
as each part is divine, the bond also is divine, and the union and 
arrangement such that each member acts with the force of the entire 
body. Hence whilst the ancient bishops said, they exercised author- 



44 DEBATE ON THE 

itvn their respective churches as the vicars of Jesus Christ and suc- 
cessors of the apos'fes sent immediately by him, they also declared 

tha thev acted /n tne name of Peter in virtue of the authority given to 
all bishop* In tne P erson °f Peter ; so that the correspondence, the 
union - 110 ' h armon y of tne entire body of the church are such that what 
on , oishop does, in accordance with the spirit and rules of Catholic 
unity, all the church, all the Episcopacy, and the chief of the Episco- 
pacy act in concert and accomplish with him. 

My friend observes that the Greeks were always uneasy under the 
Roman popedom. I admit this to a great extent, but St. John, and 
Polycarp, and Ignatius and Irenseus (his name signifies Peace, or the 
peaceful) and Eusebius and Chrysostom and a hundred others were 
Greeks, and the most eloquent advocates, and the ablest supporters of 
the preeminence of the church of Rome above all other churches. 

Here then is a cloud of witnesses who furnish an astonishing mass 
of testimony to the fact that in the early days, the Greek church as 
well as the Latin submitted willingly to the authority of St. Peter and 
his successors — the authority necessary to preserve order and peace 
and unity, &c. in the church of God on earth. 

With regard to the controversy of the gentleman with Bishop Otey ; 
there was a mooted point between Mr. Campbell and himself. I un- 
derstood however that all the discussion was on Mr. Campbell's side. 

(Mr. Campbell here explained that he had had a private discussion 
with Bishop Otey, and had afterwards written him seven letters upon 
the Episcopacy.) 

Bishop Purcell. I really do not know what Mr. Campbell's tenets 
are, or what he believes. My brethren, I am fighting in the dark. I am 
obliged to answer on the spot charges and objections against my re- 
ligion which I cannot anticipate, while I really know not what my 
antagonist's belief is, what qualifications, what marks of a divine call 
to the ministry he considers necessary, if indeed he believes in any 
peculiar separation of any man or set of men, for priestly functions. 

Will my friend say definitely, before this assembly, if he believe in 
the necessity of such call or mission. 

Mr. Campbell. I do. 

Bishop Purcell. How is that calling made known, that mission 
given? 

Mr. Campbell. By the word and providence of God. 

Bishop Purcell. How can we ascertain that word and providence 
of God ? 

Mr. Campbell. By the voice of the people and the written word — 
" vox populi vox Dei." 

Bishop Purcell. Suppose the people are displeased, for instance, 
with a Presbyterian pastor, have they the sole power to remove him ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Bishop Purcell. Suppose the ministry of a Presbyterian church 
are displeased with him, and the people of his church are pleased with 
him. May he then retain his station against the will of the ministry? 

Mr. Campbell. If the people will have it so, it must be so. " Vox 
populi, vox Dei"! 

bishop Purcell. There my brethren, you have heard him! Such 
declarations ! 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 45 



SATURDAY, January 14th., Half past 9 o'clock, A. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

I shall resume the subject where I closed yesterday evening, reserv* 
in g my remarks on the last speech of my opponent till the conclusion 
of my present argument. 

The gentleman read in the various reasons assigned for the bull of 
Nicholas, against the patriarch of Constantinople and his brethren, 
among others, the statement that the Greeks pretended to be the only 
true, catholic and apostolic church. It would not be difficult to prove 
from history that in point of seniority, the Greek church has a superior 
claim to the Roman. It is first in point of time, and claims a regular 
descent from the apostles. There is one strong argument in her favor 
which never has been met. To her belong the first seven councils. 
They were held in Grecian cities, called by Grecian emperors, and 
composed of Grecian bishops. They were wholly Grecian. The Ro- 
man church has no right to claim them. And if the doctrines proclaim- 
ed by these councils be true, they are the doctrines of the Greek church 
subsequently borrowed by the Romans. 

As this is an important point, I will expatiate a little more fully up- 
on it. I have taken the trouble to collect the following facts : at the 
first council of Nice there were 318 bishops : of these 315 were Greek 
and 3 Roman. This was the first general council, A. D. 325. At the 
first council of Constantinople, (the second general council of the 
church,) A. D. 381. there were 150 bishops ; of these 149 were Greeks, 
and only 1 was Roman. At the third council held at Ephesus, A. D. 
431, there were but 68 bishops present. Of these 67 were Greek, and 
one was Roman. At the fourth general council, which was the largest 
and most authoritative of the first four, held at Chalcedon A. D. 451, 
against Eutyches, there were present 353 bishops : 350 of whom were 
Greeks, and only 3 Roman. At the second council of Constantinople 
(the fifth general council) there were present 164 bishops: 156 of 
whom were Greeks, and 6 Romans — held against Origen and others, 
A. D. 553. At the third council of Constantinople, (andthesz^/A gen- 
eral council,) there were 56 bishops present : 51 of whom were Greeks, 
and 5 Romans. This council met against the Monothelites A. D. 680. 
At the second council of Nice, (the seventh general council,) there 
were present 377 bishops; 370 of whom were Greeks, and 7 Romans. 
Thsy met to restore images, A. D. 787. These were the first seven 
general councils of the church. I have been at the pains to make this 
collection of facts, to ascertain the merits of the controversy between 
the Greek and Roman sects, as respects the question to whom of 
right belong the doctrines of the ancient councils. 1 find that the 
whole number of bishops in these councils was 1486: only 26 of 
whom were Romans. Certainly the Greek church has the prior claim 
on our attention, and ought to be revered for her antiquity and author- 
ity, more than the schism which haughtily separated from her ! 

But, in addition to these councils having been called — not by the 
authority of the church of Rome: but by eastern emperors, and com- 
posed of eastern bishops; every great question discussed in the first 
four ; and, indeed, I may add, in the last three councils, was of Gre- w 



46 DEBATE ON THE 

cian origin. They grew up in the Greek school — a school easily dis- 
tinguished from the Latin, by the peculiar subtilty of its definitions — 
a school long accustomed to nice distinctions, and whose reasoners 
could split the thousandth part of an idea. Of this, their wars about 
homousios and homoousios are ample proof. There are no questions 
more purely abstract and metaphysical than many of those discussed 
in these seven great ecumenical councils. 

Again, these councils were not only called by Greeks, composed of 
Greeks, and occupied about Greek questions ; but were all assembled 
in Grecian cities. 

If there be any virtue in councils to establish doctrines and the prior- 
ity of churches, the Greek church must be considered the mother of 
the Roman, rather than her daughter. At all events, it is fully proved 
that the Roman Catholic church is a sect or schism, which is the bur- 
then of the proposition before us. To strengthen this conviction, I 
proceed to comment on a standard definition of Catholicity. 

I would now ask if there be any objection to the book which I hold in 
my hand, as a good Roman Catholic authority. I believe it to be the 
true standard of the Roman Catholic church. It is " the doctrine of 
the council of Trent, as expressed in the creed of pope Pius the iv." But 
while the word " catholic " is in my eye, I am reminded that my 
friend has asserted, ■ that catholic is a scripture title of the church.' I 
reply that it is not so used in the New Testament; and that it is only 
found as a general, running title to some epistles : that its antiquity is 
very doubtful, as it cannot be found in the body of the book ; and, con- 
sequently, it has no authority. But now for the definition from the 
approved standard of the church : 

Section IV. Under the head, " That the church of Christ is CATHOLIC or 
Universal," it is asked, 

What do you understand by this ? 

Answer. " Not only that the church of Christ shall always be known by the 
name of Catholic, by which she is called in the creed; but that she shall also 
be truly Catholic or Universal by being the church of all ages and nations." 
p. 15. 

We have been showing that the church of Christ was not originally 
known by the name catholic ; that the Roman sect was not the church 
of the first six centuries ; and, therefore, that the approved definition 
of the creed will not apply to this party. I have proved that she had 
no pope, or supreme head, for full six hundred years, and in corrobora- 
tion of the argument, drawn from general councils, I have shown that 
the first seven were not hers, but peculiarly those of the Greek church; 
and that the Greek church is, in fact, the mother. 

But there are yet other, and perhaps stronger arguments to show 
her daughtership. Some of my audience can appreciate the following: 
That the Hebrew is a more ancient language than the Greek, and the 
Greek than the Roman, needs not be stated but for a few. One proof 
of this fact is, that the Hebrew has given many words to the Greek, 
while the Greek has given none to the Hebrew. So the Greek has 
given many words to the Latin, while the Latin has given none to the 
Greek. Thus we prove the Roman church to have come out of the 
bosom of the Greek, from the fact, that all the leading ecclesiastical 
terms in the Roman church are Greek. For example : "pope" "patri- 
arch" "synod" "ecclesiastic" "schism" "schismatic" "htresy" "here- 
tic" "heresiarch" "catechumen" "hierarchy " "church," "chrism " 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 47 

"exorcism" "akoluthi" "diocess," "presbytery," "trinity" "mystery" 
"mystic" "catholic" "canon," &c, &c, &c. This as fully proves 
the seniority of the Greek church, as it does that of the Greek lan- 
guage over the Latin. 

All ancient ecclesiastical historians, are also Greeks, such as Euse- 
bius, Socrates, Scholasticus, Evagrius Scholasticus, Sozomon, Theo- 
doret. The most ancient and primitive fathers are also Greek. They 
were models to the Latins and imitated in their writings. 

To recapitulate, we have now shown that the Greek church is more 
ancient than the Latin church ; because the first seven general councils 
were all Greek, there being 1486 Grecian bishops and only 26 Roman 
bishops present, they were called by Greek emperors, held in Greek 
cities, and employed about Greek questions. 

The leading ecclesiastic terms of all the ancient offices, customs 
and controversies, are Greek : So are the early fathers and historians. 

These considerations superadded to the facts and documents of yes- 
terday, we think fully prove that the Roman church is not the church 
of all ages and of all nations — not the catholic and apostolic church, as 
the creed of Trent defines ; but a sect, a branch or schism, from the 
Hebrew and Greek churches of the New Testament. 

In proving the proposition before us my plan is to select one of the 
grand elements embraced in the standard definition of the church, and 
to show that such being essential to the church, the church could not 
exist without it. Now T , I prefer the arithmetical mode of procedure in 
this discussion. First lay down the rule and work a single question, 
and then leave it to others to work as many as they please. 

Thus I first laid down a definition of the Roman Catholic church 
from her own standards. From that it appeared that a pope or univer- 
sal bishop is an essential element of her existence. I then showed that 
six hundred years had elapsed from the time of the apostles, before the 
doctrine or existence of a universal bishop was thought of, and that the 
office was not instituted till the year 606. But when I have proved 
this, I have worked only one question. Any one may take up the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation, the worship of images, purgatory, (a doc- 
trine more ancient however, than either the Greek or Roman church,) 
and every other peculiar doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, and 
prove that not one of them is to be found in the divine book, nor in the 
records of the church. 

What, let me now ask, is the great point in my first proposition 1 
To prove that the Roman Catholic church is not " the mother and mis* 
tress" of all churches ; but a sect, in the full import of that word ; and 
if that be not now proved, I know not what can be proved. I admit 
the subject is capable of much more extensive developement ; but we 
think it neither necessary nor expedient to be more diffuse. 

Will the presiding moderator please read my first proposition 1 

(Here proposition No. 1. was read by the moderator.] 
say then she is not the holy, apostolic, catholic church, as she pre- 
tends to be ; for in proving her to be a sect, I prove her to be notcatho' 
lie, nor apostolic ; because the true apostolic church cannot be called a 
sect. To prove her to be a sect is to prove her not Catholic, therefore, 
nor apostolic. What remains now] Even on the concession of my 
opponent, she is not the Catholic church ; for he admits, that the Greek 
church differed from her only in a few non-essential matters. On that 



48 DEBATE ON THE 

admission, if he admits that persons are saved in the Greek church ; 
she must be a part of the church of Christ ; for with him, there is no 
salvation out of the church. 

In the next place my proposition says ' she is not holy.' I am im- 
pelled by a sense of duty, and not by any unkind feelings towards such 
of my fellow citizens as belong to that community, to attempt to prove 
that the church of Rome is not holy. I would not heedlessly or need- 
lessly offend against the feelings of an Indian, a Hindoo, or a Pagan, 
in his sincere devotions, how absurd soever they might be. Much less 
would I wound any one that professes the christian religion under any 
form ; but in serving my contemporaries, in redeeming my pledge, it 
has become necessary to investigate the grand pretensions of this fra- 
ternity, that exclusively arrogates to itself the title of holy. 

Not to expatiate at this time on the vices of the clergy and of the popes 
what the cardinals Barronius and Bellarmine have so fully noticed, and 
sometimes specially detailed, I shall take a single text from Bellar- 
mine, De. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 7. which avows a doctrine that must for 
ever make the Roman church unholy. It is expressed in these 
words: — 

" Wicked men, infidels and reprobates remaining in the public profession of 
the Romish church are true members of the body of Christ." 

How then can we admit that she is holy'? Again : it must be ad 
mitted that the great mass of all those who die in the faith and profes 
sion of the Catholic doctrines are not strictly holy ; for why then should 
they have to pass through the fires of purgatory ] 

But again ; in her own Testament (if she have a Testament. The 
gentleman may, indeed tell us his church has no English Testament ; 
for she never owned but the Vulgate. She never gave to her people, 
with approbation a French, or English, or any vernacular Testament, 
The Rhemish Testament is, however, published by the authority of a 
portion of the church; and from it we can find the doctrine of Bellar- 
mine explicitly taught in the notes appended, by the same authority 
which gave the Testament) in her own Testament, I repeat it, on John 
xv. 1. these Roman annotators say : — 

" Every branch in me, &c." Christ hath some branches in his body mystical 
that be fruitless; therefore, ill livers also may be members of Christ's church.'* 

"Ill livers" (mark it) "may be members." This is repeatedly sta- 
ted in various places, and as I understand, avowed by all that commu- 
nity, as the true doctrine of the church. " 111 livers" wicked men, in- 
fidels, reprobates, vicious characters, those guilty of crimes of every 
enormity and color, may then continue members of the Roman church, 
while they acknowledge the pope and the priesthood, and make profes- 
sion of faith in the Catholic church; she therefore counts within her 
fold 150,000,000 of souls, as my opponent stated in this city in October 
last. All that happen to be born in Catholic countries, infidels, athe- 
ists, and all, are enrolled in her communion. Her gates are wide as 
the human race. It is all church and no world with her. The lusts of 
the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, are found in her 
communion. 

The Roman Catholics in the United States are probably the best body 
of Catholics in the world. I mean those who are native citizens. But 
visit Old Spain or New Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, France, or Can- 
ada, where Catholicism is the established religion ; and then ask whe- 
ther holiness be a distinguishing attribute of the depraved and degraded 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 49 

millions who call themselves Roman Catholics! This with me is no 
very pleasant theme, and I will not extend my remarks on this point by 
unnecessary details. I have said enough to prove the allegata in my 
first proposition, and to show that the church of Rome is a sect and not 
the holy, apostolic church of Christ, as she proudly and exclusively 
pretends. I am willing to submit these documents to the severest in- 
vestigation ; and if other arguments and facts are called for, I will only 
add, we have them at command. 

My learned opponent seems to imagine that when I fix the birth day 
of the Roman Catholic church, on the 16th day of July 1054, I must 
admit that the church from which she separated was the true and uncor- 
rupted church of Christ ; but this is what logicians call a non sequitur. 
It does not follow. The gentleman seems to reason as if it were inva- 
riable that when one sect separates from another, the body from which 
it separates, must necessarily be the true church. This is not logical. 
A new sect may spring from the bosom of the worst sect on earth ; 
but does this prove that the mother sect has piety, character, or author- 
ity 1 Neither does it follow that in the year 1054 the Greek church, 
though the mother or sister of the Roman, was the true church of Christ. 
When it becomes necessary, I may show that both the Greek and Ro- 
man schisms had long before 1054, been separate from the apostolic 
church. 

Protestants have all concealed too much in every age and period of 
this controversy. Even now there is a morbid sensibility upon this 
subject among some, lest we should make Christ's church too indepen- 
dent of the pope's church. * In reproaching the mother church,' say 
they, " you reproach us, also." 

In one of the periodicals of this morning it was intimated that the 
fates and fortunes of some Protestant party are involved in the pending 
controversy. Be not afraid of the insinuations of such political alarm- 
ists. I stand here as a Protestant, not as a Baptist, or Methodist, or 
Episcopalian ; but to defend Protestantism. I am not afraid to meet 
any antagonist on these premises. In advocating the great cardinal 
principles of Protestantism, I feel that I stand upon a rock. There is 
nothing in hazard. I am sorry to see this sort of sensibility manifest- 
ed. Can the truth suffer from discussion 1 

In the mean time I will proceed to the second proposition, which will 
much illustrate and confirm the argument already offered in proof of 
the first. These great points so embrace one another, and are so in- 
timately allied, that none of them can be fully demonstrated without re- 
ference to the others. 

" Prop. II. Her notion of Apostolic Succession is without any foundation in 
the Bible, in reason, or in fact ; an imposition of the most injurious consequen- 
ces, built upon unscriptural and anti-scriptural traditions, resting wholly upon 
the opinions of interested and fallible men." 

Before I heard that the bishop intended to meet me in debate, I had 
resolved to deliver a series of lectures, on the whole pretensions of the 
Roman Church, in the following order : 1st her apostolicity, 2nd anti- 
quity, 3rd infallibility, 4th supremacy, 5th catholicity, 6th unity, 
and 7th sanctity. These seven great topics, I intended to discuss at 
full length. Each involving the others, none of them is so isolated as 
to be susceptible of an independent and separate developement. The 
very term apostolicity involves antiquity, hence, we find her pretending 
E 7 



50 DEBATE ON THE 

to trace her descent, by regular steps, back to Peter, who, she asserts, 
was the first bishop of Rome. 

" Only those that can derive their lineage from the apostles are the heirs of the 
apostles: and consequently they alone can claim a right to the scriptures, to the 
administration of the sacraments, or any share in the pastoral ministry. It is 
their proper inheritance which they have received from the apostles, and the 
apostles from Christ. ' As my father hath sent me, even so I send you.' " John 
XX. 21. [Grounds of Cath. Doc. p. 17. 

This is the doctrine of the creed of pope Pius iv. and a more glaring 
/assumption is not easily imagined. This church, however, delights 
& in assumption. She assumes that Jesus Christ did establish a church 
of all nations, to be ruled by a sort of generalissimo, or universal 
head, who was to be his vicar on earth ; by virtue of whose ecclesi- 
astical power she assumes for him political power; for his logic is, 
that Jesus Christ's vicar must represent his master in all things, in his 
political as well as his ecclesiastical power. And as Christ himself 
possesses all authority in heaven and on earth, she assumes that the 
pope his vicar ought to be the fountain of all power : that by him 
kings should reign, and princes decree justice. After having thus as- 
sumed, that Christ did establish such a kingdom and headship on earth, 
that he did constitute the office of a vicar for himself and of a prince of 
the apostles ; in the second place, she assumes that this headship was 
given to Peter, that Christ gave the whole church and the apostles 
themselves in charge to Peter ; that he gave him absolute control over 
the bishops, pastors and laity; and in the third place, to complete 
the climax of assumptions, she assumes that Christ established a suc- 
cessorship to Peter throughout all ages. On this triple assumption 
rests the colossal empire of the papacy. 

Now, as to the nature of the apostolical office be it observed with 
brevity, that it was essentially incommunicable. Holy writ recogni- 
zes but three orders of apostles, and none of them had lineal succes- 
sors. Jesus Christ, the apostle of God the Father, was the first. He 
is called in the New Testament, " the Apostle and high priest of the 
christian profession." It is not necessary to prove that he could have 
no successor. Second^ the twelve apostles, who were apostles of 
Christ, as he was the apostle of God. In John xvn. he says, "As my 
Father made me his apostle, so I make you my apostles." These then 
being personal attendants on the Messiah, could have no successors. 
Third, Apostles sent out by particular churches, on special errands. 
These are called in the New Testament oi ct7roa-ro\c) ra>v ix.x.\»<noov. These, 
always sent on special errands, could have no successors. 

If the qualifications of the apostolic office were understood, there 
could be no controversy on the question of successors. As laid 
down by Peter, Acts i. it behoved them to have been companions of 
Christ from his baptism to his acsension, to be eye and ear witnesses 
of all that he did and said. In this essential requisite they could have 
no successors. Besides, if one should have a successor, why not all? 
While the college of apostles was necessary, we see that succession 
was fully carried out. Therefore, the chair of Judas the traitor deman- 
ded a successor as well as that of Peter. But yet we have not heard 
of any controversy about the successor of Judas! 

Our first argument against the Catholic notion of succession is drawn 
from the nature of the apostolic office. 

But did we concede that the apostolic office was communicable, and 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 51 

that Christ did appoint a president of the apostles, and place his chair 
in Rome, there is no document on earth, fro m which we can learn with 
any degree of certainty, that Peter was ever bishop in Rome. And yet 
Catholics themselves, contend that it is essential to the cause of the 
succession and supremacy that Peter placed his see at Rome by Christ's 
commandment. 

Bellarmine positively affirms ; 

44 The right of succession in the popes of Rome is founded in this, that Peter 
by Christ's appointment, placed his seat at Rome, and there remained till his 
dea+h:> Lib. n. c. 1. 

, This resolves the controversy into a single question of fact, viz. 
' Did Peter i by Christ's appointment, place his seat at Rome and there re* 
main till deathJ Barronius, however says; 

" It is not improbable that our Lord g-ave an express command that Peter 
should so fix his see at Rome, that the bishop of Rome should absolutely sue- 
ceed him. [Id. lb. 

Only probable ! But there is no such succession in fact. In the 
first place, there is no proof from scripture that Peter ever was at Rome, 
much less, bishop of Rome ; and secondly, if he were an apostle, he 
could not be the bishop of any church. A king, a justice of the peace, 
the bishop of London, the vicar of Bray ! It is, on these premises, 
impossible to prove this most fundamental question. 

Various efforts have been made by the bishop of Cincinnati to ex- 
cite Episcopalians and others on this question, as if they were likely 
to be involved in the same common ruin with my opponent's preten- 
sions. There is no need for any alarm on this account. The office of 
pope and his succession, certainly, are not identical with that of 
Episcopalian bishops in England or America ! 

There is no body of men who have done more to elevate English 
literature and science, than the English clergy, none whose writings 
I have read with more pleasure than theirs, on all subjects pertaining 
to general literature, morality and religion. In some of them, indeed, 
we find weak as well as strong places, and a too great timidity in 
contending against the Romanists, lest they should endanger their right 
of Episcopacy. I incline to the opinion, that the pretensions of the 
church of Rome may be fully canvassed without at all jeopardizing 
the simple question of the divine right of Episcopacy. But if we at- 
tempt to bring a clean thing out of an unclean ; or expect to find a di- 
vine warrant in the commission given to the apostles ; or in the Ro- 
man Catholic traditions ; w T e shall never find it to the day of eternity. 
Successors must be successors in full, or they are not successors at 
all. To illustrate this— does not the existing president of the United 
States inherit all the power and authority of George Washington, by 
virtue of constitutional succession 1 Does he not possess the same 
power, in all its length and breadth, its height and depth, as did his 
predecessor, from the first to the last 1 This is true of every constitu- 
tional office in the civilized world. All the power which any prede- 
cessor can have, belongs to every incumbent : So in the church, if it 
have constitution at all. 

If the apostles have successors, they have successors in full. But 
the Roman Catholics themselves give up the controversy, by admitting 
that none of the bishops or popes inherit the power and functions be- 
stowed upon the apostles by the commission. 

I do not, indeed, found my argument for the divine right of bishops 



52 DEBATE ON THE 

or elders, and deacons, on the commission, which Jesus Christ gives 
to his apostles ; and I am prepared for all the consequences of this ad- 
mission. For hy every rule of interpretation, I must apply every word 
of the commission to the apostles ; because it addresses them only. 
But let none be alarmed at this declaration : nothing is jeopardized — 
rather, indeed, all is secured by it. 

In the presence of the apostles alone, he pronounced these words ; 
" All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me ; go you there- 
fore and convert all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the 
Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all 
the things which I have commanded you ; and lo, / am with you al- 
ways, even to the conclusion of this state," or to the end of the age or 
world. 

This commission created plenipotentiaries : it reared up ambassa- 
dors, and gave to the apostles the same power of erecting the church> 
which God gave to Moses for raising the tabernacle in the wilderness. 
They had all the authority of Christ to set up what orders they pleas- 
ed. They created both bishops and deacons ; and as they had a di- 
vine right to do so, so those created by them have a divine right to 
officiate in the duties of those offices. A true interpretation of the 
promise, " I am with you" will go far to confirm the declaration, that 
they neither had, nor could have successors in office. Of this, how- 
ever, again — 

Meanwhile, it may be objected that Paul was an apostle, and ac- 
ted without this commission. He had, indeed, a special commission, 
and the qualifications of an apostle. He had seen and heard the Lord. 
For to this end the Lord appeared to him. But as respected time, he 
acknowledged he was born rather two late to be an apostle — he was 
" born out of due time" How, then, could any of them have succes- 
sors at this day ! 

The gentleman mentioned some two persons in the Old Testament. 
They could have no successors in office, according to the argument on 
hand. It was absolutely impossible that Moses could have a succes- 
sor. His office and commission were really from God, and strictly 
peculiar to himself. He brought the Jews out of Egypt, and erected 
the tabernacle ; this was his peculiar office, which, in its very nature, 
expired when once its duties were fulfilled. The commission of Joshua, 
in like manner, was also peculiar to himself, and could not possibly de- 
scend to a successor. When he led Israel across the Jordan, and di- 
vided the land by lot amongst them, his works and office naturally ex- 
pired. So when the apostles preached the gospel, revealed the whole 
will of Jesus Christ, and erected his church and all its proper officers 
and duties, their work was done, and they, like Moses and Joshua, be- 
ing officers extraordinary, could have no successors.-[Time expired.] 

Half past 10 o block d. M. 
Bishop Purcell rises. 

Here is, beloved friends, as plain and logical a case for argumenta- 
tion, and as fair an opportunity afforded for refutation, as ever the 
annals of controversy exhibited. The first argument of my friend 
amounts to this, viz : That for reasons he has given, the Greek church 
&as superior claims upon our attention to the Roman. 

I have quoted councils, general and particular laws, usages, appeals, 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 53 

the authority of Greek and Latin fathers, that is to say, the most au- 
thentic testimony of the first ages, to show that with Rome was the 
primacy of all the churches. This, at once, upsets all that he has said. 

He says the first seven councils were Greek; and that therefore the 
Greek church had the preeminence. But, I ask, who convoked those 
councils'? Who approved them] Who sanctioned their canons, and 
gave throughout the entire church the force of law to their decisions'? 
Who guarded them against errors, and set them right when they were 
going, or had gone astray? It was the pope. I have already said, 
that Sylvester, hishop of Rome, aware of the danger that menaced the 
faith in the east, convoked the great council of Nice — that the 
emperor Constantine, the ruler of the east and west, of Rome and 
of Constantinople, the man, consequently, upon whom as chief magis- 
trate of the Roman empire it devolved, afforded the necessary facilities 
to the various bishops to come to the council. Again, who presided 
as legate of the pope] Osius of Cordova, in Spain, a western man, 
assisted, as is and has been customary, by two inferior ecclesiastics. 

The jealous Greeks beheld all this, and surely they would not have 
permitted Rome thus to assume the supremacy, if her right to it had 
not been universally admitted since the days of her founder St. Peter. 
Is it not the most splendid proof of the correctness of my argument? 
The strongest evidence that could be desired of the discomfiture of 
my adversary] 

I thought to have seen a more powerful display of logic from the 
strong and disciplined mind of my friend Mr. C; but 1 attributed the 
poverty of his argument to indisposition on his part, or to the weak- 
ness of his cause. 

Well, another reason is stated, to prove the supremacy of the Greek 
church, viz. : that the questions discussed in these councils were of 
Greek origin. Is it then to be wondered at, that as almost every error 
in the old church originated in Greece, it should be there corrected * 
that the remedy should be applied where the disease existed] 

The Greeks were at all times a curious, inquisitive, restless people. 
The passion for disputation displayed in the schools of the philosophers 
was, as by contagion, communicated to many of the professors of 
Christianity. But the manner in which it operated upon the one and 
the other was essentially different. With the philosopher such ques- 
tions were objects of understanding only, subjects of speculation; 
whereon the ingenuity of a minute mind might employ or waste itself. 
But with the christian they were matters of truth and falsehood, of 
belief or disbelief, and he felt assured that his eternal interests would 
be influenced if not decided by his choice. As soon as the copious 
language of Greece was vaguely applied to the definition of spiritual 
things, and the explanation of heavenly mysteries, the field of conten- 
tion seemed to be removed from earth to air, where the foot found 
nothing stable (nothing like the rock of Rome — new and striking 
proof of its necessity) to rest upon ; where arguments were easily 
eluded, and where the space, in which to fly and rally, was infinite. 
Add to this the nature and genius of the disputants; for the origin of 
these disputes may be traced without any exception to the restless imagina- 
tions of the East. The violent temperament of the orientals, as it was 
highly adapted to the reception of religious impressions, and admitted 
them with fervor and earnestness, intermingled, so closely, passion 
e 9 



54 DEBATE ON THE 

with piety, as scarcely to conceive them separable. The natural ardor 
of their feelings was not abated by the natural subtilty of their under- 
standing, which was sharpened in the schools of Egypt; and when 
this latter began to be occupied by inquiries in which the former were 
so deeply engaged, it was to be expected that many extravagances 
would follow. Vid. Waddington, p. 92. 

Yet, because it was in the east that the heresies in the ancient day 
of the church commenced, and in the east the councils met to correct 
those heresies, the Greek church must therefore have been the true 
church! Such is my friend's argument! and it is now plain, that a 
feebler, a more inconclusive, and a more irrational one, he could scarce- 
ly have advanced before this enlightened assembly. But what is still 
more remarkable, did not these very councils, these Greek councils, 
establish by their own acts, and these of the most solemn and authentic 
character, the supremacy of the Roman see? Did they not solicit the 
pope's approbation of their decrees, and acknowledge that without his 
sanction their proceedings were void of effect? 

He says that the emperor presided. I have already answered that 
the emperor did not preside. He distinctly acknowledged the spiritual 
to be independent of the temporal power, he alleged that he pretended 
to no right to preside. He knew that God never told the emperors, 
his predecessors, to preside over the deliberations of his church. The 
constitution of that church had been established three hundred years 
before Constantine became a proselyte to Christianity. It is unheard 
of that a temporal monarch ever presided over the deliberations of the 
church, or ruled in ecclesiastical matters. At least we catholics submit 
to no such dictation — such a confusion of things divine and human — 
such an anomaly ! I am sorry it is allow T ed in England. In that coun- 
try even a woman may be, for a woman has been, the head of the 
church, as in the instance of queen Elizabeth; nay, a little child, as 
in the case of Edward. It is contrary to reason, to scripture, to human 
rights and divine ordinances, that such as these should presume in any 
situations, to give or withhold authority to the ministry, to preach the 
gospel of Christ, or to dispense the mysteries of God. It outrages 
every feeling of sanctity, it degrades, it vilifies the priesthood, to see 
bishops and archbishops kneeling at the feet of women and boys, and 
praying them to grant a license to preach. 

My friend has charged me with making professions of respect for 
Episcopalians and Episcopal methodists, &c, but do I suppress the 
truth, and do I fail to censure them where they too are wrong. My 
friend has gratuitously presented himself before this assembly as the 
champion of Protestantism ; and I have shown that he is, if at all, but 
little less opposed than I am to the denominations I have named, on 
the vital point of orders and a called and sent ministry. He would 
amuse them with an equivocal defence of their principles to-day, and 
then present them with his own views in theology — with Campbell- 
ism, baptized Protestantism, — [Here the moderators called Bishop 
Purcell to orders] 

My friend, learnedly, (and I give him credit for it,) showed how n 
came that there were so many errors and questionable doctrines in the 
Greek church. I have stated the causes, humanly speaking, of the 
errors. It is then, an undisputed fact, that they were more numerous 
in the Greek than in the Roman church ; that the Roman church was 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 55 

comparatively free from them. But he has plairny misconceived the 
inference to be drawn from the fact ; and it is this : that as Rome 
was the primary see, the centre of unity, the mother and mistress of 
all the churches, God watched over her with peculiar care, and pre- 
served her from the errors and heresies that proved infinitely more 
fatal than the pagan persecutions, to the churches of the east. While 
they were distracted, the Roman church was united in faith ; while 
they were in danger of breaking to pieces the edifice of faith, she was 
consolidated, herself, and laboring to consolidate them under one creed. 
If any thing did prolong the gospel life in the east, it was the authority 
of Rome. By her was the doctrine of the Savior vindicated, and 
kept pure from the foul admixture, the contamination of heresy. By 
her were Arianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monotholism, and a 
hundred other novelties, the spurious progeny of dangerous opinions 
in the east, successively condemned. 

And now, having disposed of the argument which appears in the 
van of the gentleman's remarks, I will go on with a question of fact, 
to which he has again referred, touching the word Catholic, He says 
that it is not found in the New Testament. Admitting that it is not in 
the body of the canon, which I did not contend for, yet it is prefixed 
to some of the epistles, and as old, if not older, as a word belonging 
to the household of faith, than they are. He said the word K*0ca/x» 
(catholike) was prefixed to the Epistle of James in the year 1549, by 
Robert Stephens, or Robert Etienne, by which name that famous 
French printer is better known — about 300 years ago. Yes, and I 
will show you that here again his learning is at fault, that to the 300 
years must be added a thousand more, and then that the origin of the 
word is coeval with Christianity. Before quoting the testimony of St. 
Gregory Nazianzen, a writer of the 4th century, I will observe, that seven 
of the epistles found in the Catholic or Protestant Testaments, are call- 
ed catholic, or canonical, as not having been addressed to any particu 
lar church, or person, if we except the 2d and 3d of St. John, but to all 
the churches. Five of these epistles, viz. that of St. James, the 2d of 
St. Peter, the 2d and 3d of St. John, the epistle of St. Jude, as also the 
epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, or book of 
Revelation of St. John, were doubted of, and not always and every 
where received in the three first ages, till the canon and catalogue of 
the books of scripture were determined by the authority of the Catho- 
lic church, the supreme judge of all controversies in matters of faith 
and religion, according to the appointment of our Savior, Christ, ex- 
pressed in many places in the holy scriptures. These I have men- 
tioned were certainly, for some time, doubted of; they are still doubt- 
ed of by some of the late reformers. Luther, the great doctor of the 
reformation, is not ashamed to say, that this epistle of St. James, is no 
better than straw, and unworthy an apostle. Speaking of these epis- 
tles, then, Gregory Nazianzen, at that early period, uses the word Cath- 
olic, and designates them by that name : 
" KaQoKtxw 'E7ri<rroXa)v 

<« Miety Si ITsT^a, mvh Jmlvvx juizv." 

Greg. Nazianzen, Carmen de Canon. Script 

Tn English — "Some say there are seven Catholic epistles, others 



56 DEBATE ON THE 

that there are only three — one of James, one of Peter, and one of John." 
So much for the fourth age. Does not r,iy friend say his prayers'? 
Does not every Protestant unite v,- it n every Catholic in saying, "I 
believe in the holy Catholic church," as we are taught in the apostles' 
creed 1 Speaking of this most ancient formula of faith, com iosed, as 
it is believed, by the apostles themselves, before they separated for 
the great work of preaching to all nations, that it may be for ever a 
bond of union and an abridgment of sound apostolic belief, Widding- 
ton says, p. 46. "The creed which was first adopted, and that perhaps 
in the very earliest age, by the church of Rome, was that whbh is now 
called the apostles' creed ; and it was the general opirion from the 
fourth century downwards, that it was actually the production of thosi 
blessed persons assembled for that purpose; our evidence is not sufficient 
to establish that fact, and some writers very confidently reject it. 
But there is reasonable ground for our assurance that the form of faith, 
which we still repeat and inculcate, was in use and power in the very 
early propagation of our religion."* Now will the gentleman tell 
us that the word Catholic — was unknown to antiquity ] 

You will perceive, my friends, that until the very minute Mr. Camp- 
bell speaks, I know not what he is going to say. You will not won 
der that following him, my discourse should be desultory and rambling 
I am here under every disadvantage to which a speaker can be subject. 
Obliged to leave the beaten highway and follow him through the 
thickets into which, he finds it useful to plunge so frequently. 

I have at this moment in my hand, a copy of the New Testament, a 
beautiful edition, published in Glasgow, a Presbyterian city, and also 
an edition of Robert Etienne. Behold (displaying them) the title 
" Catholic," prefixed in both, to these epistles. 

I have now established the fact that Catholic was the ancient name 
of the church — that no other than the Roman Catholic was entitled to 
that name — that the Roman Catholic church is the Catholic church 
of all ages, that in all ages it has had a head. For we may call the 
pope by any name we please, the name is nothing. It is the station, 
and the incumbent thereof, that it is important to ascertain, and the 
noonday is not clearer than that both existed from the very origin of the 
christian religion in Rome. 

He argues against the supremacy of Rome from the circumstance 
that all the ecclesiastical words are Greek. 

This is not at all surprising. There was not a particle of the Scrip- 
tures originally written in Latin. Surely my friend must be hard pres- 
sed for want of argument, when he grasps at such a floating, improba- 
ble, airy one as that! Words are but the signs of ideas. But he af- 
firms that all the epistles are written to Greek cities. Was then none 
of these epistles written to Rome ! And was Rome a Greek city 1 
Does not Paul surpass himself — does he not reason most deeply 
in that epistle 1 Does he not style the Romans the " Called of Jesus 
Christ ; the beloved of God ?" Does he not say, 1st ch. v. 3, "I give 
thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, because ycur 
faith is spoken of in the whole world" ] Is it not in that epistle that 

* A note to Wadding-ton on this subject, contains the following remark: " Ig- 
natius, Justin, and Irenaeus, make no mention of it, but they o r ^asLuaily repeat 
some words, contained in it, which is held as a proof that they knew it by heart," 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 57 

he confounds the Jews, by proving that the ceremonial works of the 
law avail them nothing towards salvation, and the Gentiles by shew- 
ing that their shameful excesses, notwithstanding the boasted lights 
of philosophy, involved them equally with the rejected Jews in the 
divine malediction 1 Does he not devote eleven chapters of this epis- 
tle to establish solidly the fundamental doctrines of the christian faith] 

Finally, was not the church of Rome at least as ancient as the church 
of Corinth ? 

My friend spoke of transubstantiation, and purgatory. These will 
come in their proper place in the debate. 

The conclusion of all his arguments is, that the Roman Catholic 
church is a sect. This, I may venture to say, he has failed to prove. 
Indeed he has done any thing but prove it ; for he has in fact strengthen- 
ed my grounds of defence, for the more he has questioned my authori- 
ties and arguments, the more signally have I established them. 

My friend is correct in saying that to prove the church not Catholic, 
is to prove her neither holy nor apostolic. Had he acted on this hint, 
and compressed his first three propositions into one, and condensation 
is all important in discussion, he would have greatly abridged his own 
labor, and saved this audience and myselfTnuch loss of time. I have 
proved that the Roman Catholic church is now the only church 
that is, as a church, (and not as a band of sailors or travellers without any 
fixed habitation,) spread over the entire world ; that she only has been 
so from the beginning, to the exclusion of every sect : that she alone 
now bears, that she alone has ever borne the name of Catholic ; that 
no other denomination, no sect now has or ever had a right to it — and 
that, as she is Catholic, she is also holy, she is apostolic, she is 
divine, and consequently the only true church of Christ. By the 
same strictness of investigation and of reasoning, by the same 
splendid evidence of facts, I will prove that she alone is united in 
faith and government as the true church should be ; for Christ 
prayed for his disciples the night before he suffered, "that they 
may be one, as thou Father in Heaven and I are one." Now in what 
church shall we seek for this unity 1 We shall see that, later in the de- 
bate, for notwithstanding the admission of my friend, we must plod our 
weary round, debating these propositions as he has penned them. But 
the gentleman says, " the Roman Catholic church assumes every thing." 
No, my brethren, it is not so. When she can so validly establish her 
claim, she does not, she has no occasion to assume any thing. She 
proves all things, and holds fast to them because they are good. In 
the first place we prove from scripture that Christ did establish an 
earthly head to his church, and that that head was the apostle Peter. 
If not, why did he say to Peter, " Thou art Peter, (a rock) and upon 
this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it" 1 Again, he did give him a preeminence over the other 
apostles. If not, why did he say to him, Luke, xxii. 32, " Simon, 
Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you (in the plural, that is, all 
the apostles) that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee 
that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren" ? 
He told Peter that he would deny him — that he would fall — but he at 
the same time cheered him by the divine assurance that his fall should 
not be for ever, that he would arise from it, and that after his transitory 
humiliation, no longer presumptuously confiding in his own strength, 

8 



58 DEBATE ON THE 

but placing all his trust in God, he should not only secure! y"s tan d him- 
self before both Jews and Gentiles, but likewise strengthen and sup- 
port his brethren. For this Christ prayed for Peter, and the Father 
who also loves the church, heard and he will ever hear that prayer. 
The faith of Peter hath never failed. When did he ever say this to 
the other apostles 1 Peter is named first, when the apostles are enu- 
merated ; he speaks first in the meeting of the apostles and brethren, 
and gives instructions to proceed to the choosing an apostle in the place 
of the Iscariot. He is the first to reproach the Jews with deicide, and at 
his preaching eight thousand are converted. He is sent by an angel 
from heaven, to the gentile Cornelius ; is released from prison by an 
angel ; confirms the Samaritans with St. John : healeth JGneas at Lyd- 
da: raiseth Tahitha from death. at Joppa ; founds the first see among 
the gentiles at Antioch. He speaks first in the council at Jerusalem, 
"men, brethren, &c." Acts, xv. "and all the multitude among whom 
there had been previously, much disputing, held their peace." " Then 
after three years" says St. Paul, Gal. i. 13. "I went to Jerusalem to 
see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days." And ch. 2. v. 1. "Then 
after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem, and I went up ac- 
cording to revelation, and conferred with them the gospel which I preach 
among the gentiles, lest perhaps I should run, or had run in vain." 

My friend says that this assumption is followed by injurious effects, 
religious and ^political, inconsequence of the power wielded by a single 
individual. This directly impeaches the foreknowledge and sanctity 
of Christ. He established the power, and from its exercise within the 
just limits, which he has prescribed, I maintain that no consequences 
injurious either to religious or civil society can ever ensue. History 
attests, and I have quoted some striking instances from the records of 
the Greek church, that the power of the popes was conservative. Their 
influence has ever been most favorable to the best interests of society 
as well as of religion. They were the friends of peace, the patrons 
of learning, the umpires of angry princes and hostile nations on the 
one hand, while on the other they preserved pure and uncontaminated, 
the holy deposit of the truth and proscribed error. Confined to its pro- 
per sphere the influence of the head of the church must needs be salu- 
tary ; must, if God was wise, be beneficial and far above reproach. 
This power has been exerted for the welfare of society under every form 
of government, monarchical, aristocratical, mixed, and republican. It 
is the friend of all. It is irreconcileable with none, but of the tempo- 
ral influence of the popes it will be time enough to speak in its proper 
place. I will now proceed to show that the want of an ecclesiastical 
superior, whom all are bound to obey, lets in a deluge of evils, and 
these irremediable, on every religious body that wants a head. Reason, 
alone should attest this truth, without further illustration. The sheep- 
fold over which there has been placed no shepherd, will soon be the 
prey of the wolf. The school in w T hich no teacher presides, the soci- 
ety which recognises no chief magistrate, will not fail to exhibit a 
scene of confusion, and must finally be dissolved. Let us appeal to 
experience. What has multiplied the (so called) christian sects to 
such an excess that neither the evil nor the remedy can be any longer 
endured in Protestant communions'? It is the principle contended for 
by my opponent. It is this, as bishop Smith justly observes, more 
prolific than the knife that divides the polypus, that daily multiplies 



T< 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 59 

divisions and produces new sects in Christianity. Hear a late number 
of the Baptist Banner, speaking- of this controversy. It says :— 

" B-ut to be serious, we cannot believe that any good will lbllow this debate. 
But too much excitement is attempted to be gotten up against the Roman Ca- 
tholics — an excitement bordering on intolerance. Could we feel assured, either 
from his course in this instance or from a retrospect of his past life, that Mr. 
Campbell sought this discussion solely to vindicate truth and expose error, and 
not ostentatiously to exhibit his tact in debate and to reap a pecuniary harvest 
by a new publication-, we might feel less distrust of consequences, and should 
have some faint hope that probably good would ensue; but credulous, nay, stu- 
pid must be the man, who in looking over the circumstances which have con- 
curred in originating this debate, can suppose that any religious or commendable 
motive prompted him to throw the gauntlet and provoke the controversy. In 
looking over his past career, a love of truth and a desire to promote the peace 
and prosperity of Zion, have not been the prominent traits which have marked 
his cnaracter and rendered conspicuous his course. [Bishop P. was here called 
to order; Mr. Campbell also here observed, that as he had read the worst part 
of the article he might read the balance; and the point of order being examin- 
ed, the board decided that he was in order.] We do not speak for other 
places, but in Kentucky he has caused more serious injury to the cause of reli- 
gion, more disturbance, more wrangling, collision, and division in society, in a 
:ew years, than in our humble judgment, the Catholics can ever do. But we 
forbear. The debate will take place. "" The Campbellites will sip delicious wis- 
dom from the lips of their leader. A new impulse will be given to their now 
drooping state. They will again wage his high claims to competency to reform 
religion and introduce the Millennium. And Mr. Campbell will have the proud 
satisfaction of rendering great good — to himself by the sale of another book! 
This will be about all that will result from this discussion." 

I knew not until yesterday that the Baptists were opposed to Mr. 
Campbell ; but as necessarily as the stream flows from its source, 
do these disastrous effects which the Baptist Banner deprecates, flow 
from the system which acknowledges no head in religious matters, 
but allows every individual, qualified or disqualified, to give his own 
crude fancies for the revelation of heaven. 

The Zion's Advocate of the 28th ult. and the Palladium of the 7th 
inst. give similar testimony against the radicalism of my friend. But 
I spare him the reading. You can now judge of the tree by its fruits : 
his are bitterness and confusion, those of the Catholics, admitting a 
supremacy in the church, are order, unity and peace. His rule neces- 
sarily creates enmities and endless altercations in the church; the Ca- 
tholic rule cuts them up by the very roots, and not only arrests their 
growth, but renders their very existence impossible. 

Mr. Campbell said that the Roman Catholic church was an apos- 
tacy from the true Church, and that this event, so important in the an- 
nals of the world, took place precisely on the 16th of July 1054, when 
she separated from the Greek church, It is a pity, as he intended to 
be so particular, that he did not tell us whether it was old style or new. 

But perceiving the terrible effect of this admission, upon his argu- 
ment, he retraces his steps, and taking us all aback, he says that the 
Greek church was not after all the true church of Christ, and thus he 
lias left us as much in the dark as ever. Remember I told hirn how 
much it had puzzled the world and would puzzle him to settle that 
point. I ask him again then, if the Roman Catholic church apostatiz- 
ed from the church of Christ at the period in question, and the Greek 
church, from which she separated, was as corrupt as herself, where 
was, at that time, the true church 1 God's covenant with her, Ezech. 
xxxvii. 6*2, was an everlasting covenant of peace, a covenant, like that 
of day and night, to last for all generations, Jre. xxxiii. 20, 21, al- 



60 DEBATE ON THE 

ways visible, Is. n. 2. 3. Michers iv. 1. 2. spread far and near, and 
teaching many nations, Ps. xi. 8. Dan. xi. 35. 44. Malach. i. 11. 
The pillar and the ground of truth, unfailing ; the gates of hell were 
never to prevail against her. If all these glorious prophecies were not 
fulfilled in the Roman Catholic church, in what other church were the> 
fulfilled 1 When will my friend answer me ? 

Mr. C. observes that the Roman Catholic church or the see of Peter, 
assumes to be the representative of Christ in all his power, ecclesiasti- 
cal and political, and that as Christ was supreme head over all the 
earth, temporal and spiritual, so was Peter, and so are his successors. 

I have already shewn that this is no part or parcel of the Catholic 
doctrine. The pope's power is spiritual, his kingdom like that of 
Christ, is not of this world. He has not a solitary inch of ground 
over which to exercise temporal authority in any territory on earth, be- 
yond the narrow limits of the papal states ; and the authority with 
which he is there invested rather originated in the people's preference 
of the bishop's crosier to the kingly sceptre, than in any views he could 
himself, have cherished of worldly aggrandizement. Hear Gibbon, m. 
vol. p. 230., Phil. 1830. "The want of laws could only be supplied 
by the influence of religion, and their foreign and domestic counsels 
were moderated by the authority of the bishop. His alms, his ser- 
mons, his correspondence with the king and prelates of the west, his 
recent services, their gratitude, an oath, accustomed the Romans to 
consider him as the first magistrate. The christian humility of the 
popes was not offended by the name of dominus or lord, and their face 
and inscription is still apparent on the most ancient coins. Their tem- 
poral dominion is now confirmed by the reverence of a thousand years ; 
and their noblest title is the free choice of a people, whom they had 
redeemed from slavery." 

I had a great deal of other ground to go over on this point, but my 
time is limited ; and I will now proceed to review one of the most 
dreadful charges ever made against a pope of Rome, and to show that 
it is totally without foundation. 

If I understood Mr. C. aright, he asserted, that it was the pope Gre- 
gory consecrated Phocas the centurion king, in the church of St. John 
the Baptist in Constantinople, and that he did so, contrary to every law 
of God, or man, for the base, the iniquitous purchase of the title of pope. 

(Mr. Campbell reasserted the charge.) 

Now I aver that the charge is unfounded and false. I mean no dis- 
respect to Mr. C. He would not intentionally deceive this assembly 
or wilfully sustain by calumny an otherwise hopeless cause. But 
leaving motives to their proper judge, I shall now prove to this audi- 
ence that he has stated what is not true, and alleged odious charges 
against the pope which he cannot substantiate. On his own reputa- 
tion for accuracy and his knowledge of history let the penalty for ever 
lest, of having been this day detected before so many of his fellow 
citizens, egregiously at fault in both. Hormisdas king of Persia, indig- 
nant at the defeat of his general Varamus (see Natalis Alex. saec. sext. 
Art. v. p. 226,) sends him a petticoat in derision. The war is renew- 
ed ; Mauritius loses 12000 troops, taken prisoners by the Chagano ; he 
refuses to release them by paying the humble pittance set as a price on 
the head of each by the victor ; they are butchered in cold blood ; his 
people, shocked at his avarice and cruelty revolt — Mauritius abdicates — 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 61 

the people choose the centurion, Phocas, to reign over them in his 
stead ; the patriarch of Constantinople consecrates Phocas king, in the 
church of St. John the Baptist, in C. P. The entire story is thus re- 
lated by Gibbon. 

"The troops of Maurice might listen to the voice of a victorious leader, they 
disdained the admonitions of statesmen and sophists, and when the}- received an 
edict which deducted from their pay the price of their arms and clothing-, they 
execrated the avarice of a prince insensible of the dangers and fatigues from which 
he had escaped: and every age must condemn the inhumanity or avarice of a 
prince, who by the trifling ransom of six thousand pieces of gold, might have pre- 
vented the massacre of 12,000 prisoners in the hands of the Chagan. In the first 
fervor of indignation, an order was signified to the army of the Danube, that 
they should spare the magazines of the province, and establish their winter-quar- 
ters in the hostile country of the Avars. The measure of their grievances wa3 
full : they pronounced Maurice unworthy to reign, expelled or slaughtered his 
faithful adherents, and, under the command of Phocas, a simple centurion, return- 
ed by hasty marches to the neighborhood of Constantinople. 

" The rigid and parsimonious virtues of Maurice had long since alienated the 
hearts of his subjects; and a vile plebeian, who represented Tiis countenance and 
apparel, was seated on an ass, and pursued by the imprecations of t ; j multitude.* 
The emperor suspected the popularity of Germanus with the soldiers and citi- 
zens; he feared, he threatened, but he delayed to strike; the patrician fled to 
the sanctuary of the church; the people rose in his defence, the walls were de- 
serted by the guards, and the lawless city was abandoned to the flames and ra- 
pine of nocturnal tumult. In a small bark the unfortunate Maurice, with his wife 
and nine children, escaped to the Asiatic shore; but the violence of the wind 
compelled him to land at the church of St. Antoninus, near Chalcedon, from 
whence he despatched Theodosius, his eldest son, to implore the gratitude and 
friendship of the Persian monarch. For himself, he refused to fly. His body 
was tortured with sciatic pains, his mind was enfeebled by superstition; he pa- 
tiently awaited the event of the revolution, and addressed a fervent and public 
prayer to the Almighty, that the punishment of his sins might be inflicted in this 
world, rather than in a future life. After the abdication of Maurice, the two 
factions disputed the choice of an emperor; but the favorite of the blues, was re- 
jected by the jealousy of their antagonists, and Germanus himself was hurried 
along by the crowds, who rushed to the palace of Hebdomen, seven miles from 
the city, to adore the majesty of Phpcas, the centurion. A modest wish of re- 
signing the purple to the rank and merit of Germanus was opposed by his resolu- 
tion, more obstinate, and equally sincere : the senate and clergy obeyed this 
summons, and as soon as the patriarch was assured of his orthodox belief, he con- 
secrated the successful usurper in the church of St. John the Baptist." Gibbon; 
sixth Amer. Edit, of the Hist, of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Page 
184. Vol. iii.A. D.1830. 

Thus it appears that Gregory did not act the part assigned him by 
my friend, and that this accusation turns out to be, like a thousand 
others, taken up at second hand, without examination or suspicion of 
falsehood or incorrectness, against the pope, a mere fabrication with- 
out a shadow of foundation in history! What will this enlightened 
audience now say ] What apology is my friend prepared to make 
for having unconsciously led them into error 1 This case may illustrate 
many others that are similar, and I beg it may not be forgotten. 
Napoleon, Pepin, &c. are parallels, the pontiff could not resist the 
will of an entire people ; and it would only perpetuate lawless vio- 
lence and disorder to contest a claim to the throne, to which no one 
was able to support his rival pretensions. The pope, seeing that the 

* In their clamors against Maurice, the people of Constantinople branded him 
with the name of Marcionite or Marcionist; a heresy, (says Theophylact, Lib. 

Vlii. C. 9.) V-st* t»vos fivpxg iv\x&eict$ ev>i$y; rs xxi xctTxys\x(nog. Did they Only 

^. out a vague reproach, or had the emperor really listened to some obscure 
teacher of those ancient Gnostics ? 
F 



62 DEBATE ON THE 

people, who had the right, selected themselves a new ruler, like a 
true lover of peace and friend of established order, congratulated Phocas 
on his election, and used the language of scripture, be it observed, in 
his letter, because anarchy was at an end, and an orthodox and gener- 
ous prince substituted on the throne of C. P. for a tyrant, a miser, and 
a suspected Marcionite heretic. Mauritius may have died penitent, 
but he reigned without love for his subjects. 

We were spoken to of the president of the U. S. He has the same 
power and authority as Washington had while the constitution of the 
country endures. And as long as the constitution of the church en- 
dures, the successors of Peter have the authority of Peter. If there 
was ever to come a time, when the true church was to fail, Jesus 
Christ was bound by his wisdom and love to foretell it. If it was his 
intention to forsake the church, and if the power and authorities of all 
the regularly constituted orders were to fail, he never should have 
given it the promise of perpetual endurance, and the precise period, and 
all the different circumstances of its defection should have been more 
clearly and emphatically revealed, than any other event in the scrip- 
ture. It is needless to add that such defection is not foretold; but* on 
the contrary it is repeatedly declared by the Son of God, that his 
church should stand forever, that his Holy Spirit should abide with it 
all days, that the gates of Hell should not prevail against it. What is 
the meaning of the words " the gates of Hell shall not prevail against 
it]" In the east, laws were enacted, justice administered, and the 
sages and people assembled for deliberation at the gates of the cities. 
Hence the expression denotes, wisdom, subtlety, malice. Again, 
when a city was invaded by a hostile army, the hottest fighting was 
around its gates. In them and around them, were all the energies of 
the conflicting hosts put forth — and on the issue of the battle was sus- 
pended a nation's weal or woe. Thus by the gates of Hell are clearly 
meant, all the craft and power of Hell, the malice of heresy and er- 
ror, the force and violence of persecution. All these shall rage around 
the church in vain, for Christ is in the citadel, and his Holy Spirit is the 
sentinel that guards its outposts and defences from being overthrown 
by error. But he says that the apostles had all power given to them 
— grant it — but w r hat was the nature of that power 1 what was its ex- 
tent 1 It was a power to teach all nations. The weapon of their war- 
fare was not carnal but spiritual ; " for our wrestling," says St. Paul, 
Ephes. vi. 12. "is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities 
and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the 
spirits of wickedness in the high places." " Behold," says Christ, " I 
send you as lambs in the midst of wolves. Carry not with you scrip 
nor staff, &c. Be not solicitous for the morrow, what you shall eat, or 
wherewithal you shall be clothed. Behold the lilies of the field, they 
sow not, neither do they spin — and yet your Heavenly Father clotheth 
them — careth for them — how much more ye, &c." By patience they 
were to run towards the fight proposed to them, and by patience they tri- 
umphed over their persecutors. The pope, should occasion require, 
will show himself the faithful imitator of these heroic models. Were 
he stript to-morrow of all external, temporal power whatever, and a 
poor wanderer among the mountains of the moon in Abyssinia, he 
would have no less power, and would be, for aught I know, no less 
respected, than he is at present. His chief authority is, thank God, 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 63 

such as this world can neither give nor take away. It was given for 
the salvation of the people of God, and as long as there is a soul to be 
saved, a sheep to be brought back to the fold, or a spiritual conquest 
achieved for the glory of Christ, and the praise of his grace, so loner 
shall that power survive ; when all else decays, itself, amidst vicissi" 
tudes unchanged, shall flourish in immortal youth. 

For our sakes, in this distant province of creation, and at this late age, 
as well as for those who saw the Word made flesh conversing among 
men, was this commission given and this authority conferred. Our 
souls were no less dear to Christ than were those of the first be- 
lievers of glad tidings — and Cincinnati was the rival of Jerusalem in 
the Savior's love ! With him there was no exception of persons — 
neither past nor future. He provided for every casualty which he 
foreknew should happen in the lapse of ages — he anticipated every 
favorable or adverse circumstance that should affect the condiiion of 
his church, and with divine wisdom he adapted its constitutions to the 
peculiar exigencies of every age and nation and individual believer, 
until we reach "the consummation of the world." He sent his apos- 
tles with power to ordain faithful men, who should in their turn be fit 
to teach others. This is the charge that St. Paul repeated to Titus, 
and thus has the succession of apostolic teachers been continued from 
nation to nation, and from age to age, the church gaining in one region 
of the earth what she had lost in another, renewing her youth like the 
eagles, increasing her members, and daily transmitting to the bright 
realms of heavenly glory innumerable multitudes of her children of 
every clime and tongue, and peculiarity of social government or manners. 

The apostles exercised various functions — I admit it: But they 
substituted the deacons to wait on tables, and distribute the alms, so 
do their successors ; Christ gave them powers adequate to every 
emergency. 

It has been wrongly asserted, that Moses had no successor. Joshua 
was, in one important branch, his successor, for it devolved on him to 
lead the people into the land of promise, and without this consummation, 
the ministry of Moses would have been in vain ; and there are Joshuas 
now whose office it is to lead the people to their spiritual Canaan^ 
and as God obeyed the voice of Joshua, in commanding the sun to 
stand still, so he now obeys the voice of his priests making suppli- 
cation for his people. Here is an obvious analogy between the old 
and the new covenants. My friend argues that, because Moses had 
no successor, Peter could have none, and the apostles none; but it is 
clear that Moses had a successor. All that Moses accomplished would 
have been incomplete without a succession of ministry to carry on the 
work of God in favor of his people, Israel. This, Eusebius beauti- 
fully establishes, p. 46. So by the same analogy, it is necessary that 
the succession of an apostolic priesthood should be continued forthe car- 
rying on of the christian dispensation, and be transmitted down from gen- 
eration of spiritual guides to generation, until they shall have conducted 
all the people of God to the true land of promise, where I trust we shall 
all meet, and cease to dispute, as we now do, like little children, at 
the imminent risk of neglecting the weightier points of the law. For 
myself, I am heartily sick of such interminable contention. Here 
would I stop and suffer the matter to end without another word, if the 
sad necessity was not imposed upon me of defending the impugned 



64 DEBATE ON THE 

tenets of my church, and giving with my voice the testimony which, 
with the divine assistance, I should not hesitate to seal with my blood, 
to the truths of the Roman Catholic faith. From the discharge of this 
duty, no true believer, still more no minister of God, should shrink; 
and it is worthy of notice that, with all the love and humility of St. 
Paul, he should have warned his disciple Timothy, and still more the 
body of the faithful, against associating with "heretics." I never use 
this word, as it is now so harshly understood, to designate those who 
differ from me in religion ; but I know not how any human being is to 
determine without the aid of a competent tribunal, who are heretics, 
and who are not; for we cannot look into the heart. 

I am told that an English divine was accustomed humorously to de- 
fine these terms in this way. " Orthodoxy is my doxy and heterodoxy 
is yours." But seriously, what being on earth can look into the secrets 
of the heart? Who was to determine when heresy occurred 1 That 
it existed in the early days of the church none can doubt. The apostles 
denounced it. They delivered its authors to Satan (of whom St. Paul 
says, are Hymeneus and Alexander whom I have delivered to Satan, that 
they may learn not to blaspheme. 1st Tim. 1. 20.) The apostles did 
not suffer their disciples to make this discrimination for themselves, in 
defiance of the express word of God. They did not allow every man 
to assert the right of private judgment on scripture, which they taught 
was of no "private interpretation." 2 Peter, 1. 20. The very form 
"understanding this first" exceedingly strengthens the text. Divisions 
will ever exist. They are, unfortunately, as natural to depraved man, 
as vice ; and but little, if at all less fatal. " There were also false 
prophets among the people" says St. Peter, 2d Ep. xi, 1, even as 
there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of 
perdition, and again v. 10 and 12, " They fear not to bring in sects, 
blaspheming those things that they know not, promising their disciples 
liberty, whereas they themselves are the slaves of corruption." These 
are fountains without water, clouds tossed with whirlwinds, or as St. 
Jude says, v. 13, "raging waves of the sea, foaming out of their 
own confusion, wandering stars to whom the storm of darkness is re- 
served for ever." Who would trust his safety in a perilous voyage 
to an unskilful pilot 1 Who would risk the horrors of the deep without 
chart or compass 1 Has God abandoned his children so far as to leave 
them a prey to every innovator, every wolf in sheep's clothing? Is 
there no ark of safety for man, while the waters of error overspread 
the earth 1 Yes, my friends, there is. It is the church. That ark 
alone can save the world. (i Whosoever," says St. John, 2d Ep. 9, 
10, "revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not 
God. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive 
him not into the house, nor say to him, ' God speed you.' For he that 
sayeth ' God speed you,' communicateth with his wicked works." 
This admonition, we understand to be directed against false religions 
and false teachers. It does not forbid charity, which we owe to all 
men, and particularly the erring; for whom, we are taught it to be our 
duty to pray, that they may happily come to the knowledge of 
truth. 

I confess that, for my part, I cannot practise this doctrine literally, 
nor refuse to salute one who differs from me in faith. I retain my 
own convictions and eschew his errors. The apostles did differently, 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 65 

and who will presume to say, they were not more enlightened than we ? 
When St. John met Cerinthus (who denied the divinity of Christ) in 
the baths of Ephesus, he ran out saying that he was afraid the baths 
would fall upon him. And when his disciple St. Polycarp met Mar- 
cton, in the streets of Rome, he refused to salute him. " Do you not 
know me ?" said Marcion. " 1 do know you," replied Polycarp, " to be 
the oldest son of the Devil." This shows the dread of religious inno- 
vators entertained by the apostles of Christ and by their disciples, the 
dangerous result of heresy. — [Time expired.] 

Half -past 11 o'clock, A. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises— 

I am sorry that I cannot sympathize with the gentleman in his em- 
barrassment, occasioned, as he alleges, in being obliged to respond 
promptly to objections to his doctrines, which, he says, he cannot anti- 
cipate. So far as he is placed in the predicament of a respondent to 
my allegations, he has no one to blame but himself. When arrang- 
ing the preliminaries as to the mode in which this discussion was to *^ 
be conducted, the gentleman perseveringly insisted that I should lead 
the way, commencing every session ; and that, whether the proposition 
were affirmative or negative, he must always respond. It was a sine 
qua non with him, that he should always have the last word. I 
would, as an apology for giving him such an advantage, inform my au- 
dience, that on no other condition would he consent to meet me. If, how-v^^ 
ever, he sincerely dislikes the arrangement, I am willing to alter it, 
and change places with him to-morrow. The affirmative, should, in 
all right, and by universal usage, open, and the respondent follow, in 
debate. 

I regard this discussion, my friends, as a very serious and important 
affair, involving in it the very best interests of the whole community. 
I do not appear here to speak for myself alone in behalf of Protestant- 
ism, or to you alone. I speak for my contemporaries, and for the great 
cause of truth; and I am glad for their sake that this debate is imme- 
diately to go to record. I must, therefore, give as connected a form 
as circumstances will permit to my argument. For this reason, I 
passed over some things in the speech of yesterday that I might finish 
my first argument this morning. I unfortunately, however, forgot to 
notice them before I commenced my second proposition. 

I will now recapitulate. — 

The question was asked me, yesterday evening, " Where was the 
true church before the time of the Greek schism !"*C I observed, this 
morning, in answer, that my having shown the Greek church to be the 
senior, or the original of the Roman, did not necessarily involve the 
idea that the Greek church was at the time of separation the true Catholic i- '' 
church. To this answer the* gentleman has not replied ; but yet reiter- 
ates the question. His assumption of a church of nations with a poli- 
tical head, having always existed, so confounds him that he cannot see 
a church without a pope, or a national establishment. I might ask, 
in reply, where was the church before the days of Constantine 1 ^^ 

W T e can, however, show that from the earliest times there has ex- 
isted a people whom no man can remember, that have earnestly and 
consistently contended for the true faith once delivered to the saints. 
If he requires me to put my ringer on the page of history on which is 
f8 9 



66 DEBATE ON THE 

described the commencement of the degeneracy of the Roman diocese 
from the true faith, I will turn back to about the year of our Lord 250. 
Then the controversy between Cornelius and Novatian, about the 
bishopric of Rome, embraced the points at issue, which separated the 
true church from that which was then grievously contaminated with 
error and immorality. It was, indeed, a controversy about the purity 
of communion and discipline, rather than about articles of doctrine. 
And it is worthy of remark, that such was the principal issue made at 
that time, although the doctrine of Christianity will not long continue 
pu/e in a degenerate community. 

S\ have here, before me, Eusebius, the oldest of ecclesiastical histo- 
rians, who informs us that Novatus and his party were called 
Cathari or Puritans. And, although he appears greatly incensed a- 
gainst Novatus and his party, he can record no evil against them ex- 
cept their " uncharitableness" in refusing to commune with those of 
immoral and doubtful character. 

The gentleman has given you his definition of orthodoxy and hete- 
rodoxy : my definition is — the strong party is the orthodox, and the 
weak party is the heterodox, 

I hold in my hand one of the latest and best historians — Wadding- 
ton. My learned opponent has already introduced him to your ac- 
quaintance. He is a Fellow of Trinity college, Cambridge, and 
Prebendary of Ferring, in the cathedral church of Chichester. The 
account he gives of these reformers is sustained by Jones and other 
ecclesiastical historians. I prefer Waddington for his brevity and 
perspicuity. He says : 

" We may conclude with some notice of the sect of the Novatians who were 
stigmatized at the time both as schismatics and heretics; but who may perhaps 
be more properly considered as the earliest body of ecclesiastical reformers. 
They arose at Rome about the year 250, A. D. and subsisted until the fifth cen- 
tury throughout every part of Christendom. Novatian, a presbyter of Rome was 
a mau of great talents and learning, and of character so austere, that he was un- 
willing, under any circumstances of contrition, to re-admit those who had been 
once separated from the communion of the church. And this severity he would 
have extended not only to those who had fallen by deliberate transgression, but 
even to such as had made a forced compromise of their faith under the terrors of 
persecution. He considered the christian church as a society, where virtue and 
innocence reigned universally, and refused any longer to acknowledge as mem- 
bers of it, those who had once degenerated into unrighteousness. This endea- 
vor to revive the spotless moral purity of the primitive faith was found inconsis- 
tent with the corruptions even of that early age; it was regarded with suspicion 
bv the leading prelates, as a vain and visionary scheme; and those rigid princi- 
ples which had characterized and sanctified the church in the first century, were 
abandoned to the profession of schismatic sectaries in the third." 

This sounds a little like Protestantism. Our author proceeds : 

"From a review of what has been written on this subject, some truths may be 
derived of considerable historical importance; the following are among them : — 
1. In the midst of perpetual dissent and occasional controversy, a steady and dis- 
tinguishable line, both in doctrine and practice, was maintained by the early 
church, and its efforts against those, whom it called heretics, were zealous and 
persevering, and for the most part consistent. Its contests were fought with the 
* sword of the spirit,' with the arms of reason and eloquence; and as they were 
always unattended by personal oppression, so were they most effectually success- 
ful — successful, not in establishing a nominal unity, nor silencing the expression 
of private opinion, but in maintaining the purity of the faith, in preserving the 
attachment of the great majority of the believers, and in consigning, either to im- 
mediate disrepute, or early neglect, all the unscriptural doctrines which wer? 
successively arrayed against it." 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 67 

Other truths are here stated, as consequent from the premises. I 
will however for the satisfaction of my Episcopalian friends read what 
follows, in this connection on church government. 

"There was yet no dissent on the subject of church government. It was uni- 
versally and undisputably Episcopal ; even the reformer Novatian, after his ex- 
pulsion from the church, assumed the direction of his own rigid sect under the ti- 
tle of hishop; and if any dissatisfaction had existed as to the established method 
of directing the church, it would certainly have displayed itself on the occasion 
of a schism, which entirely respected matters of practice and discipline." Hist, 
of (he chh.p. 79. 

These Puritans or reformers spread all over the world, and continu- 
ed to oppose the pretensions of those who, from being the major par- 
ty, claimed to be the Catholic or only church. They continued under 
the name of Novatians for more than two centuries; but finally were 
merged in the Donatists, who, indeed, are the same people under ano- 
ther name. These Donatists were a very large and prosperous commu- 
nity. We read of 279 Donatist bishops in one African council. Of 
these Donatists the same historian deposes : 

" The Donatists have never been charged with the slightest show of truth 
with any error of doctrine, or any defect in church government or discipline, or 
any depravity of moral practice ; they agreed in every respect with their adver- 
saries, except one — they did not acknowledge as legitimate the ministry of the 
African church, but considered their own body to be the true, uncorrupted, uni- 
versal church." 

Mark it. The Douatists considered their own body to be the true, 
uiicorrupted, universal church! "It is quite clear," our author pro- 
ceeds : 

u It is quite clear, that they pushed their schism to very great extremities, even 
to that of rejecting the communion of all. who were in communion with the 
church which they called false ; but this was the extent of their spiritual offence, 
even from the assertions of their enemies." Wad. Hist. p. 154. 

The Donatists, in some two centuries, were amalgamated with the 
Paulicians. They, too, were called Puritans. Jones, who has been at 
the greatest pains to give their history, gives the following account of 
them : 

" About the year 660, a new sect arose in the east, under the name of PAULI- 
CIANS, which is justly entitled to our attention. 

" In Mananalis, an obscure town in the vicinity of Somosata, a person of the 
name of Constantine entertained at his house a deacon, who having been a pris- 
oner among the Mahometans, was returning from Syria, whither he had been 
carried away captive. From this passing stranger Constantine received the pre- 
cious gift of the New Testament in its original language, which even at this ear- 
ly period, was so concealed from the vulgar, that Peter Siculus, to whom we owe 
most of our information on the history of the Paulicians, tells us the first scruples 
of a Catholic, when he was advised to read the bible was, " it is not lawful for us 
profane persons to read those sacred writings, but for the priests only." Indeed, 
the gross ignorance which pervaded Europe at that time, rendered the generality 
of the people incapable of reading that or any other book; but even those of the 
laity who could read, were dissuaded by their religious guides from meddling with 
the Bible. Constantine however, made the best use of the deacon's present — he 
studied the New Testament with unwearied assiduity — and more particularly the 
writings of the apostle Paul from which he at length endeavored to deduce a system 
of doctrine and worship. ' He investigated the creed of primitive Christianity,' 
says Gibbon, ' and whatever might be the success, a Protestant reader will applaud 
the spirit of the enquiry.' The knowledge to which Constantine himself was, un- 
der the divine blessing enabled to attain, he gladly communicated to others around 
him, and a christian church was collected. In a little time, several individuals 
arose among them qualified for the work of the ministry ; and several other church- 
es were collected throughout Armenia and Cappadocia. It appears from the 
whole of their history, to have been a leading object with Constantine and his 



66 DEBATE ON THE 

brethren io restore as far as possible the profession of Christianity to all its prim- 
itive simplicity." Jones' Hist. Christian chh. p. 239. 

Again : 

"The Paulician teachers," says Gibbon, "were distinguished only by their 
scriptural names, by the modest title of their fellow pilgrims ; by the austerity 
of their lives, their zeal and knowledge, and the credit of some extraordinary 
gift of the Holy Spirit. But they were incapable of desiring, or at least, of ob- 
taining the wealth and honors of the Catholic prelacy. Such anti-christian pride 
thev strongly censured." — Id. ib. p. 240. 

I might read almost to the same effect from Waddington and Du 
Pin. True they are called heretics by those who call themselves Ca- 
tholic and us heretics ; but what does this prove 1 

Until the appearance of the Waldenses and Albigenses, these Pro- 
testants continued to oppose the church of nations in the east, and in 
the west, until at one time they claimed the title of Catholic. We 
read of hundreds of bishops attending the different councils in which 
they met to oppose the violent assaults of their enemies. 

It is sometimes difficult to say which were the more numerous party, 
those in communion with the Cathari, or Puritans, sometimes called 
Novatians, sometimes Donatists, sometimes Paulicians, sometimes 
Waldenses ; but always, in fact, Protestants. 

The spirit of true religion seems to have fled from Rome from the 
first appearance of the Novatians. The first schism at Rome acknow- 
ledged and recorded hy the Roman Catholic historians, is that which 
occurred at the election of Cornelius over Novatus. Hence Novates 
is called the first anti-pope. Du Pin and Barronius amply testify of 
the violence by which St. Peter's chair was often filled with a vicar 
after this schism. In the election of Damasns man) 7 were killed in the 
churches of Rome. One hundred and thirty four persons, beaten 
to death by clubs, were carried out of a single house at this election. 
Had the Holy Spirit any thing to do in thus filling the chair of St. Pe- 
ter with a vicar of Christ ! Is the church which permits such things 
and which has been sustained by such means, the true church of God 1 
Is the person thus elected, the supreme head of Christ's church — 
the proper vicar of Christ] ! May we not then say that the spirit of 
God on that day, had departed from Rome? And may we not add, 
from the documents before us, that if there be any truth in history, 
we have found a succession of witnesses for the ancient faith against 
Rome, from the days of the first schism till the present hour] 

There is but another point in the speech of my opponent, to which I 
will now respond. I called on him to explain the difference between 
the claim of the title of pope, or universal father, (as St. Gregory op- 
posed it,) and the same claim as now maintained by the head of the 
church. The name pope, indeed, has in modern times, much changed 
its meaning; for once it was applied to all bishops, and is now ap- 
plied to every priest in the Greek church. But when has the title 
"universal father," been changed] He alluded, in reply, to the 
schism between the Greek church and the Roman church. The Greek 
church, it seems, would not allow that the ordinances of religion with- 
out their sanction, were validly administered. Is not that°the very 
plea of Rome at this hour] Does she not say, that the bishops and 
clergy of the English church are all laymen, because that church se- 
parated from the Roman church ; and that all the authority she had 
from her has been since revoked by the- authority that gave it ? How 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 69 

often are we told that the pope has the power of resuming" all authority 
given him — that he can create, and afterwards destroy] that whatever 
ecclesiastical power he gives, he can take away ; and that therefore 
all heretics excommunicated and anathematized have no power left to 
perform the ordinances of religion ] The ground upon which the gen- 
tleman stands as to his defence of the authority of the pope, is precise- 
ly the ground of Gregory's opposition to the title, as claimed by Boni- 
face in. if I can understand his attempt to explain it. 

But I must advert, before I sit down, to a single point on which I 
touched in my speech of this morning, viz. that of the councils. The 
gentleman asks, did not Sylvester the pope preside in the first general 
council by his legate ] I affirm that he cannot show documents to 
prove that fact. — Nay, let him show, if he can, that the first seven 
councils were called by the bishops of Rome, or that his legates were 
there to preside. 

What would the gentleman prove by the fact, if it be a fact, that a 
Roman bishop presided over one of these councils 1 That, therefore, 
they were Roman councils 1 How would such logic pass with us with 
regard to the house of representatives 1 His argument runs thus : Mr. 
Henry Clay was once speaker of that house, Mr. Clay is from Ken- 
tucky, therefore, the house of representatives were all Kentuckians ! 
This would be exactly the pith of the logic we have heard. 

My opponent admits the history of the first seven councils which I 
have given to be correct: but explains it by asserting that all the busi- 
ness was eastern. But there were western heresies, as well as eastern, 
and western business as well as eastern transacted in these councils. 
I therefore object to his exposition of that matter. It would have been 
impolitic on his exposition to call together eastern men to decide 
upon eastern heresies. They ought to have sent western men, who 
would have been more impartial judges. But he has not yet adduced 
one document, showing that these councils were called for such purpo- 
ses, or that the east only was concerned in these questions. 

On the prefix " Catholic 9 '' to the epistles, the gentleman did not 
hear me, or did not apprehend my meaning. The argument is not a- 
bout its antiquity but its authority! He has not proved, and cannot 
prove that it was so prefixed in the first ages, nor that it w T as ever so 
applied by any inspired writer, Having brought no documents to 
prove this, his reasoning is wholly irrelevant. 

But you have been treated, my friends, to a feast from the "Baptist 
Banner" one of the party ephemerals opposed to reformation. Un- 
fortunately for the cause of religion, every age has produced a crop of 
these special pleaders for party tenets. Many such a banner was un- 
furled against Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley and all re- 
formers : for they were all heretics and controversialists. Indeed there 
never was a good man on earth who was not a controversialist. From 
the days of Abel and Noah till the present hour, the friends of truth 
have been heretical and controversial. But what has the Baptist Ban- 
ner to do with the present points at issue 1 Is the gentleman so hard 
pressed as to form such alliances, to deliver himself or cause from ruin 1 
I trust he will either keep, or be kept to the question in debate, and 
leave Protestants to settle their own controversies. — [Time ex- 
pired.] 



70 DEBATE ON THE 

Twelve o'clock, M. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

I thought we should be placed under considerable obligations to my 
friend, for putting his finger upon the historic page that records the 
day and date of the apostacy of the Roman Catholic church from the 
true and holy Apostolic church, with so much precision. But now we 
are adjourned back nearly 1000 years, and yet nothing more definite 
than a "some time about the year 250!" Some time about! He 
does not tell us whether it was in one year, or another, that the church 
began to be corrupt. It was some time about, and so on. About this 
time, it seems, the Novatians separated from the church — well, Paul 
foresaw that such events would occur in the church's history — he 
foresaw that " ravenous wolves would enter the fold ;" that dissensions 
would exist, at all successive periods, to the end of time — that every 
day new heretics would start up, who would deny the truth, introduce 
false doctrine, and trouble the people of God. The Novatians were 
one of these sects — and what did they teach 1 Why the most revolt- 
ing and horrible doctrines; among others, the doctrine that a convert 
to Christianity, who, in times of peril and temptation, nay even when 
compelled by physical force, should forsake his creed, could never be 
restored, no matter how sincerely penitent. Who that feels his frailty 
and knows that his heart in an evil hour might stray from duty, does 
not revolt at such a doctrine, that for one offence would cut him off 
forever ! God dealt not so with Adam, nor Christ with Peter, when 
at the voice of a woman, and in an evil hour, even his strong heart 
failed him. He admitted him to mercy, received him back to his 
bosom, and made him the rock of his church. 

But if all heretics are right, and this among the number — if the 
church was wrong in separating herself from these men — if it is her 
duty to say to the upholder of false doctrine "all hail," you are as 
free from error, as incorrupt and immaculate, as we are, come partake 
with us, we are of one communion; the rule should, according to the 
gentleman's logic, work both ways, and Rome has as good a right as 
anyother to be called the church of Christ. On the other hand, if the 
Novatians were right, as he says they were, in excluding others, the 
church was right in excluding them. The speech of heretics, St. Paul 
tells us, 2d Tim. ii. 17, spreadeth like a cancer; he elsewhere says, 
that evil communication corrupts good manners; and the Pagans were 
not insensible to the wisdom of the distich — 

"Principiis ohsta ; sero medicina paratur 
"Cum mala per Ionics "mvaluere moras." 
My friend must have forgotten his argument of this morning, when 
he said that the church of the living God should include none but the 
pure and holy. If this be true, we must all give it up ; for who is holy ? 
Which of us can lay his hand upon his heart and say I am without 
sin? No, we are only holy in acknowledging our sinfulness and guilt 
in the sight of God, with humility and prayer. " If we say we have 
no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us! If we say 
we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. If 
we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to 
clear us from all iniquity." St. John, Ep. If such be the gentleman's re- 
quisitions, there can be no church of Christ in this erring world. There 
is none pure from defilement, says Job, and all are included as the 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 71 

objects of divine displeasure, from which only the blood of Christ, 
with faith, repentance and good works, can save us. If the gentleman 
insists on applying a test which would require absolute perfection to 
enable us to endure it, there is no such holiness, that I am aware of, 
exhibited in this probationary state. My friend may feel a proud con- 
sciousness that he is a happy instance of its existence, but for my part, 
I cannot, I should not think it safe to lay the nattering unction to my 
soul. I would advise no man to do so, while the great St. Paul com- 
mands us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling; and tells 
us, he chastised his own body, lest while he preached to others he 
himself " should become a reprobate," 1st. Cor. ix. 27. It is our duty 
to acknowledge that we are frail and sinful mortals even like the rest 
of men. Establish a contrary rule, and pride digs one abyss after 
another beneath our feet, and there will not be left one virtuous feeling, 
one sound principle left upon which we can take our stand to make a 
last appeal to heaven for mercy ! When Christ empowered the church 
to throw her nets into the sea of human life, as the apostles did into 
the lake, she gathered into it fishes, both good and bad ; when the nets 
are hauled ashore, the good fish will be selected and the bad thrown 
back into the sea. So will it be at the end of the world. The angels 
of God will come forth and select the elect from the reprobate — they 
will gather the wheat into the garner, but the tares they will burn 
with unquenchable fire. The Catholic church with a consciousness of 
man's true condition in this life, and a liberality which does her honor, 
and which, all agree, ought to belong to the fold of Christ, permits all to 
join in her religious festivals and exterior communion who profess the 
same faith, and are willing to submit to her decisions as her children. 

But mark the distinction between the body and the soul of the church, 
all who profess the true faith, assist at the same religious exercises 
and obey the same pastors, belong to the body of the church and are 
therefore numbered among her children ; but to faith and exterior com- 
munion of which alone man can take cognizance, must be added hope and 
love and grace with God, that we may belong to the soul of the church. 
Of the latter the church does not undertake to decide. This she leaves 
to God who alone can see the heart. She, herself, judges not the in- 
scrutable things of the spirit of a man, but contents herself with know- 
ing and teaching that nothing can escape the piercing and all-seeing 
eye of God, who will render to every man according to his works, on 
that day when the hope of the hypocrite shall perish. Hence, as long 
as one of her members disqualifies not himself for the communion of 
the faithful by flagrant impiety, notorious depravity, or scandalous 
excess, she rejects him not; but like that charity of which St. Paul 
speaks, 1st Cor. xiii. "is patient, is kind, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth, 
not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth, belie veth all things, hopeth 
all things, endureth all things, with modesty admonishing men, if per* 
adventure God may give them repentance." 

The gentleman quoted from Waddington the history of the Nova^ 
tians. He says, they continued, how long I know not, but till ! 
(forget not the word,) till they merged in the sect of Donatists. The 
expressive word till is enough. There is no such fatal and terminating 
word in Catholic history. The Catholic church is universal, and not 
sectarian. It is perpetual in duration, and is not merged as one wave 
of error is merged in or obliterated by another. The gentleman asserts, 



72 DEBATE ON THE 

that the Donatists did not differ from the Novatians. This is incor- 
rect. The Donatists fell from schism into errors which the No- 
vatians had never adopted. They employed the "savage Circum- 
cellions" as the protestant historian Waddington calls them, to 
pillage churches, murder Catholics, and perpetrate other acts of 
barbarity unheard of among the meek followers of Jesus Christ. 
What, too, will my friend say to the uncontrollable propensity to sui- 
cide, which they were accused of encouraging and indulging with 
dreadful frequency? Not so the true church — she comes like Jesus 
Christ to call sinners to repentance, and heal the contrite of heart — 
she employs his own inviting, and attractive, accents of pity and 
compassion : — " Come to me all you that labor and are heavy bur- 
dened, and /will refresh you, not drive you to despair, to acts of self 
destruction; and you shall find rest for your souls." Matthew xi. 28, 
A hard heart will fare badly in the end, says the scripture, and conse- 
quently every feeling of justice and humanity revolts at the idea that 
the Novatians could have been animated by the meek spirit of Jesus 
Christ, when they condemned to eternal exclusion from the church for 
a single, and that, frequently, a compulsory fault, as when an individ- 
ual was condemned by brute force to offer incense to the idols, or the 
Donatists, who revolted against the authority of the African bishops, 
and ravaged the countries where they prevailed with a lawless soldiery. 
Is this the meek church of him who came to preach deliverance to 
captives 1 Must we palliate these and a hundred similar excesses, to 
criminate a church which would, if her mild counsels were obeyed, have 
averted these evils from mankind 1 Is it candid, is it just, to blame her 
without cause and to withhold praise where it is due 1 The Roman 
Catholic church has never given the example of such cruelty. She 
on the contrary admits all sinners to repentance ; she counts as belong 
to her communion, all the children baptized in Protestant communions 
who die before they are capable of committing mortal sin, or who living 
in invincible ignorance that they have been bred up in error, keep 
the commandments of God, and love him, as far as their knowledge of 
his divine nature will permit. All these belong to the soul of the 
church; and are consequently among the most precious of her fold. 
Even among the enlightened Indians if any there be that keep inviola- 
bly the natural law and serve their Creator according to the best lights 
which they possess, these she enrolls among her children, and teaches 
us to consider them as objects of God's special mercy, whom he will 
not, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, fail to illustrate with the light 
of divine truth. For this purpose the resources of his wisdom, are 
like tl\at wisdom, infinite. Thus while the Catholic church watches 
with the most scrupulous fidelity over the purity of faith, in her 
has the beautiful saying of the psalmist been fulfilled, " Mercy and 
truth have met one another, justice and peace have kissed." Ps. 
lxxxiv. 11. 

By what ingenuity can the gentleman flatter himself he will estab- 
lish the claims of the discordant and evanescent sects of these early 
ages to the title of Catholics. Sisyphus-like, these sects which he is 
laboring so hard, so vainly, to roll up to the summit of that "moun- 
tain placed upon the top of mountains," spoken of by Is. ii. 2, 
and which is the aptest figure of the Catholic church, to which all na- 
tions flow, will fall upon him and crush him. He can never prove 



ROMAN CATHOLIC KELI^IS-lV. 73 

them Catholic in time, in place, or in doctrine. The Novatians did 
not slip into the Donatists, nor the Donatists into the Paulicians ; there 
was no common bond of union, no identity of doctrine, among these 
heterogeneous sects. As it is the same sun which took its station in 
the heavens at the creation that now shines oyer us, so it is the same 
religion that was taught eighteen hundred years ago by Jesus Christ, 
that irradiates us at this very day with the light of truth ; and not more 
difficult, would it be to count all the vapors, mists and clouds, that 
passed athwart the bright luminary of day since he first gladdened the 
universe with his beams, than to enumerate the numberless sects that 
have cast their shadows on the light of Catholic holiness, and purity, 
and truth, since the origin of Christianity. They have passed, or are 
fast passing away for ever, while she lasts on, and will last till the end 
of time. " I have seen the wicked," says the Psalmist, xxxvi. 35, 
41 highly exalted, and lifted up like the cedars of Lebanon. And I 
passed, and lo! he was not, and his place was not to be found." This 
is a glorious indication of the stability of the Catholic church — of the 
truth of the power that sustains her. And as she signalized her 
triumph over all the false gods of Paganism, by establishing the 
church of All Saints, and of the God who made them saints, on the 
ruins of the greatest of idolatrous temples, so does she signalize her 
triumph over all sects and heresies, falsely professing to be christian, 
by the august pontiff who speaks to the eternal city and the Catholic 
world. From the inspiration of scripture, and of splendid facts, I pass 
to the inspiration of poetry, I care not whose, and close the words of 
my argument in the w T ords of Byron : 

"But thou of temples old, or altars new, 
Standest alone — with nothing like to thee— 
Worthiest of God, the holy and the true! 
Since Zion's desolation, when that He 
Forsook his former city, what could be 
Of earthly structures in his honor pil'd 
Of a sublirner aspect ? Majesty, 
Power, glory, strength, and beauty, all are a'isl'd, 
In this eternal ark of worship und'enTd/' 

* * & % % 

My friend has dwelt eloquently upon riots in the church in particu- 
lar seasons of excitement. But shall a society forfeit all claims to 
regard, because, in seasons of high excitement, differences of opinion 
proceed to violence] or a few bad people come to blows'? It has 
happened, and may happen among all denominations, even the most 
peaceful sects, and every body of men ; (instances were here specified.) 
A riot may take place at an election of president, and blood be shed ; 
but does this affect the title cf chief magistrate of this union? Is he 
to lose his office because blows were struck during the election'? and 
if the pope could not always be elected peaceably, by reason of the 
disturbances created by men, w r as the succession to cease, and was 
there never to be a pope again, or a bishop, or any other pastor in the 
church ] was Christ not God because Peter, the servant Malchus, shed 
blood for him] See the terrible effects of my friend's bad reasoning. 
The deist has availed himself of it, and denied the God of the Old 
Testament, because exterminating wars, as we there read, were waged 
at his command. We must make allowances for the passions and 
G 10 



74 DEBATE ON THE 

weaknesses of human nature; but the aim of religion is to correct, to 
heal, if she cannot entirely remove them. When the pope was elected, 
in the case alluded to, he restored order. As Christ said to Peter, so 
said he to the mob excited by Novatian, "Put up again thy sword 
into its place, for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword." 
Matthew xxvi. 52. 

The gentleman asked me to tell him in what objectionable sense the. 
bishop of Constantinople claimed the title of Universal Father. It 
was in a sense never used before; he had no title to it; he assumed 
too much in claiming it. Again, it was he who pretended that no 
sacrament could be administered but by his authority. The Catholic 
church teaches that, however illicitly he may exercise it, no authority 
on earth can take even from a degraded priest the power of consecrat- 
ing. Schismatical bishops, when duly ordained themselves, could 
ordain bishops, priests and inferior clergy. We admit the baptism 
of Methodists and Baptists by aspersion, or immersion, as I have 
already explained ; and even the orders of the English Episcopal 
church are contested, on the ground of the very serious doubt whether 
the first of their bishops was, himself, consecrated by a bishop, or 
if so, by a valid formulary. 

My friend was not at all accurate in stating the number of bishop9 
present at some of the first councils. There were more present at 
them, as I can easily shew, than he has stated. He draws a parallel 
between, the council of Nice and the house of representatives. I do 
not understand the force of his analogy. If that council belonged ex- 
clusively to the Greeks, why did they permit a Latin to preside 1 But 
it was to shew the world that they admitted the authority of Rome 
that Osius, the pope's legate, presided — and without his signature, 
and the pope's approbation, their acts would have had no force as rules 
of Catholic faith. What analogy is there between Henry Clay and 
Osius? Did they stand in the same relation to their respective assem- 
blies'? Did they ever dream that they would be placed in juxta posi- 
tion 1 If the speaker of the house, or the president of the senate, were 
to object to the passing of a law, would his veto avail anything] 
would not the majority rule] 

My friend said, first, that Catholic was a new term ; and next, when 
he found it impossible to prove that, insisted it was not used to designate 
the church, by inspired writers. I have abundantly disproved both 
of these assertions. The apostles were inspired writers, and it dates 
from their time ; and they alone, according to the rule of St. Augustin, 
had the right to institute it. Besides, what are all the glorious pro- 
phesies of the universal diffusion of the church by Isaiah, &c. &c. but 
the evidence that it should be what its name imports] In fact, it was 
Catholic before all the New Testament was completed. And the 
apostles, aware of the doubts that error would originate on the autho- 
rity of the church, gave a sure and unprring guide to every sincere be- 
liever, teaching him to say, next after the profession of his belief in God 
himself — not, I believe in the bible — it is not once mentioned — not in 
any sect — there were none heard of at that time — but "I believe in the 
holy Catholic church." — [Time expired.] 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 75 

Three o'clock, P. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

I may have mistaken in ascribing to the bishop of Rome what was 
done by the bishop of Constantinople, in reference to the personal 
consecration of the successor of Mauritius ; but this does not affect 
the justice of my remark, or invalidate my reasoning : and I think 
my worthy friend apprehends this, inasmuch as the consecration w r as 
approved and sustained by Gregory. I read those documents at the 
same time, and may have confounded them, but w 7 e shall hear them 
again and see how much is either gained or lost by the admission. 

44 As a subject and a christian, it was the duty of Gregory to acquiesce in the 
established government, but the joyful applause with which he salutes the for- 
tune of the assassin, has sullied with indelible disgrace the character of the 
saint. The successor of the apostles might have inculcated with decent firm- 
ness the guilt of bbod, and the necessity of repentance : he is content to cele- 
brate the deliverance of the people and the fall of the oppressor; to rejoice that 
the piety and benignity of Phocas have been raised by providence to the impe- 
rial throne; to pray that his hands may be strengthened against all his enemies; 
and to express a wish, perhaps a prophecy, that, after a long and triumphant 
reign, he may be transferred from a temporal to an everlasting kingdom."* — 
Gibbon Hist. Dec. and Fall Rom. Emp. vol. viii. p. 211. 

Now this, if I mistake not, amounts in substance to my affirmation. 
Gregory approved the usurpation, and sanctioned the induction into 
office of a man who had wrested the throne from the legitimate master, 
and who was both a murderer and a usurper. 

I could wish that my opponent would select some of the great points 
of my argument in his replies, and form an issue with me. Were this 
piece of history blotted out of existence, what loss to the main argu- 
ment 7 ? These are merely incidental and minor matters — illustrations 
rather than proofs, and leave the great facts as they were. I must, 
however, briefly glance at some other little things before I resume my 
argument. 

The gentleman's next remark was, " that Joshua was the successor 
of Moses." True it is, that every man is in one sense successor to 
some one who preceded him. But Moses was, for a time, captain, 
prophet, priest, and king of Jeshurun. Joshua, how r ever, merely com- 
manded the people, and divided the land of Canaan among them. This 
did not Moses : Moses accomplished all that he was appointed to do. 
He needed no successor in the peculiar work assigned him. They 
were both extraordinary offices. Moses was a law-giver, and Joshua 
a savior. The law was given to the people by Moses : Joshua gave 
them an inheritance. Neither of them, in the nature of things, could 
have a successor in the same office, for its duties were all discharged. 

I was pleased to hear the gentleman admit all that I said concerning 
the Novatians. They had one fault which we both allow — they were 
too severe in one branch of discipline — they could never receive those 
who had grievously fallen — no repentance would obtain re-admission 
if the penitent had very flagrantly sinned. The occasion was this : 

* Gregor. 1. xi. epist. 38, indict, vi. Benignitatem vestras pietatis ad impe- 
riale fastigium pervenisse gaudemus. Laetentur coeli et exultet terra, et de 
vestris benignis actibus universal reipublicae populus nunc usque vehementer 
afflictus hilarescat, &c. This base flattery, the topic of Protestant invective, is 
iustly censured by the philosopher Bayle, (Dictionnaire Critique, Gregoire 1. 
*Not. H. torn. ii. p. 597, 593.) Cardinal Barronius justifies the pope at the ex- 
Dense of the fallen emperor. 



73 DEBATE ON THE 

In the interim of the Pagan persecutions, many new converts were 
added to the churches. By and by, when the storm of persecution 
arose, they withdrew and fell away: but when a calm ensued, ihey 
sought to be restored to the church. The Novatians opposed their 
restoration ; the other party contended for it. The Puritans got vexed 
with the frequent indulgences and backslidings of such professors; 
and this occasioned that extreme on their part, which drew down upon 
them many anathemas from the other party. They had other objec- 
tions besides this against the opposing party; but this was sufficient 
for a division. 

I was sorry to hear the gentleman excusing the church for embrac- 
ing in its bosom men of every sort of wickedness. He spoke with 
great feeling and eloquence upon the subject of calling ourselves holy, 
&c. We admit that there is no man free from all pollution, whose 
heart is always and only pure. But what has this to do with the 
openly wicked and profane — reprobates of the deepest dye? Ought 
the church to open her doors as wide as the human race, and admit 
every human being without discrimination'? Is there no medium? 
He quoted the parable of the tares and wheat. It is true, the Savior 
commanded to let the tares and wheat grow together till harvest : but 
the gentleman assumed that.it was spoken of the church. I admit the 
doctrine, as applied to the world. " The field is the world" not the 
church, said the Savior. Does this excuse us for tolerating reprobates 
in the bosom of the church? "You are not of this world," says the 
Savior to his disciples — " My kingdom is not of this world," " Come 
out from among them, and separate yourselves, and I will receive you, 
says the Almighty Father. What concord has Christ with Belial, or 
he that believeth with an infidel?" 

As to the"continuation of the Novatians till the Donatists, and the 
Donatists till the Paulicians," &c. my friend emphasizes the word till) 
as if those witnesses for Christ had died away when some new sect 
arose. The fact is, that when some great leader arose, his name was 
imposed upon all that associated with him ; and different leaders, in 
various parts of the world, moved great masses of professors, who 
were essentially the same people; and when they became acquainted 
with each other, they coalesced under one great profession, variously 
nicknamed by the opposite party. So are the Lutherans, Calvinists, 
W T esleyans, Cameronians, &c. of our own time. 

Sorry was I to hear my liberal antagonist compare the Protestant 
sects to the psalmist's description of a prosperous wicked man — "I 
saw," says he, "the wicked great in power, spread himself like a 
green bay tree: he passed away; yea, he was not. I sought him, and 
he could not be found." I do not know how his Episcopalian friends 
will thank him for this compliment. I have no doubt in this he was 
sincere, for the Romanists often bewailed the long life of Elizabeth, 
because, under her reign, a new race of Protestants was born and edu- 
cated, and alienated from the Roman hierarchy, who were proof against 
all the machinations of Rome. They hoped that the Protestant Epis- 
copalians would, like the green bay tree of David, (emblem of the 
prosperous wicked,) have withered away, and been reabsorbed by the 
mother church ; but for once the application failed, and the wicked 
Protestants have for three centuries grown and increased, in de- 
spite of all the policy and effort of Rome, and are now in expectation 



BOMAH CATHOLIC RELIGION. 77 

of seeing the same 3Jth psalm verified in the fates of Roman Catho- 
licism. 

Every sect and individual, as I said before, is passive in re- 
ceiving a name. Sectarian names are generally given in the way of 
reproach ; thus the disciples were first callsd christians at Antioch, 
most probably in derision ; yet it was a very proper name. Call us 
what you please, however, it does not change nature or race. The 
disciples of Christ are the same race, call them Christians, Nazarenes, 
Galileans, Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Waldenses, Albigenses, 
Protestants, or what you please. A variety of designation affects not 
the fact which we allege; we can find an unbroken series of Protes- 
tants — a regular succession of those who protested against the corrup- 
tions of the Roman church, and endeavored to hold fast the faith once 
delivered to the saints, from the first schism in the year 250, A. D. to 
the present day ; and you may apply to them what description or de 
signation you please. 

The gentleman spoke of these sects as waves passing by while the 
true church remained like a wall, immoveable and unchangeable. 
History refuses him her suffrage in this assumption : for it deposes 
that she has changed, in whole, or in part, her tenets and her disci- 
pline, no less than eighteen times in all — that is, once, at least for. 
every general council. She is the mutable immutable church, con- 
tending for uniformity in faith and variety of discipline. 

My opponent has quoted the apostles' creed. Du Pin, and a learn- 
ed host prove that the apostles never wrote it. The doctrine contained 
in it, I admit is apostolic. And it is worthy of remark that like all 
old creeds, it states facts ; whereas modern creeds are human exposi- 
tions of doctrines. For my own part, I can adopt every article of that 
creed, ex an mo ,• except, perhaps, I would change one expression, and 
say that ■ I believe in a Catholic church.' I believe that there does 
exist such a thing as a truly Catholic church of Christ. But as for 
human creeds, I make no such platforms a bond of union among 
christians. We, like the Romanists, differ about church discipline 
among ourselves : but all the Protestant world believes this 4 apostles' 
creed,' as it is called ; and are as uniform in this faith as the " mother 
church" herself. 

I was sorry to hear the election of the pope, the pretended vicar of 
Christ, as respects riots, and blows, and carnage, compared to that of 
the president of the United States, and to have the excesses com- 
plained of in Rome, excused on the ground, that sometimes we have 
mobs, and perhaps a fight on a presidential election. Is the presiden- 
tial chair of such dignity and sanctity as that of the vicar of Christ] ! 
And is a riot or murder no more incongruous in the one case than in 
the other'? We opine, that he who holds that exalted station should 
come into it without blood. And yet in all these political elections, 
since the Protestant reformation, there is nothing to equal half the up- 
roar, and tumult, and murder, that happened in filling the chair of St. 
Peter, at the conflict between Damasus and Ursinus, not to mention a 
second. Can it be compared to the election of the president so as to 
transfer to the one the language which is pertinent to the other? As, 
for example, " Take heed to the flock over which the Holy Spirit has 
placed you!" 

The gentleman is glad that his church is so liberal as to authorize 
g 2 



78 DEBATE ON TtlZ 

every sort of baptism, even that performed by heretics, provided only 
the proper name be pronounced ! This is certainly a modern excess 
of liberality. If I am rightly informed, his predecessor, in this very 
charge, was not so liberal as he — in one case, at least, which occurred 
at Portsmouth in this state. There were two members of the Episco- 
pal .church,' one of the parties the son of an Episcopalian minister, de- 
sirous of entering into matrimony. Bishop Fenwick desired to know 
of what party they were, and on learning that they were Episcopalians, 
refused to marry them, unless previously baptized by himself. There 
may be many other instances of the same sort, certainly, in former 
times there were many, and so far as they prove that the church is not- 
immutable, are hopeful indications of the possibility of reform. But 
this is not the question before us. We are not discussing baptism, or 
the eucharist, or any of the "seven sacraments," or any ordinance of 
the church. Will the gentleman inform us whether his church regards 
the administration of the eucharist, or any other of her seven sacra- 
ments valid, unless at the hand of those whom she authorizes to min- 
nister them. Let him not wave the question by a reference to a prac- 
tice which he knows can be explained on other principles. 

I shall not now stop to dispute about Sylvester and the council of 
Nice: but shall resume my general argument where 1 left off. 

All agree that if primacy or supremacy reside in the church at all, 
it must reside in some person. If Jesus Christ intended to make Peter 
the prince of apostles, the vicar of Christ; the title will prove it clear- 
ly. If this headship, on the other hand, was not given to Peter; none 
can derive it from him by succession. Was Peter invested with this 
authority 1 If not, none can pretend to it as his successors. The 
whole question rests on this. My learned opponent cannot snow that 
Peter ever had such an office. He affirms, indeed, that Peter was su- 
perior to the rest of the apostles : but does he show in what respect 1 
How many kinds of superiority might there have been in his case ? I 
will answer for him and say that there are, at least, four. 1st. of age, 
2nd. of talents, 3d. of character, and 4th. of office. These are clearly 
marked in holy writ, and fixed in society. Admit then that Peter is 
head of the list; can he decide which of these lour has placed him 
first. The bishop asserts that he was first in office. But how can he 
take this for granted, when theie are three other ways in which Peter 
might be at the head ? Is this the reasoning that logic or Catholicism 
sanctions or requires 1 

I would request the gentleman to tell us, how he knows which cf 
these four sorts of superiority to ascribe to Peter ! He assumes one, 
and is bold in asserting the Catholic doctrine of a supreme head of the 
church on this assumption. Peter may have been the oldest, or the 
first called of all the apostles : or his character or talents may have 
given him a decided superiority ; why then assume one, to the exclu- 
sion of the others. The greatest empires have been built on the most 
bold assumptions. But never was there a more baseless monarchy in 
the annals of time than that of papal Rome. I wish my opponent 
would for once assume, or take up some one of these grand points, on 
which his church rests, and not waste his time in righting about sha- 
dows or peccadillos. Let him come at once to the great principles of 
the debate. I challenge him to show cause, why he assumes for Peter 
a supremacy of office, rather than of age, of talent, or of character; 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 79 

any one of which is much more feasible and probable than that which 
he has begged. — [Time expired.] 

Half past 3 o'clock, P. M. 
Eishcp Furcell rises — 

I was far from charging Mr. C. with a wilful dereliction of the truth, 
when he stated, what he now confesses to be untrue, that Gregory 
crowned Phocas. The imputed motive was very base, but he now 
sees that it w T as not the pope's. I attribute this extraordinary mis- 
take, on the part of my friend, to the fact of his having been too apt 
to believe that every thing written against Catholics must be true, and 
to his memory's not having been lately refreshed in his early readings. 
But it is due to the public that he should apologize for having, 
through want of care on a matter of so much importance, fallen into 
so very serious a mistake in what was calculated so deeply to injure 
the truth. He should first have inquired whether ail he said was 
true. I repeat, then, that Gregory did not crown Phocas at all, much 
less for the express purpose of eliciting from the gratitude of the sover- 
eign an acknowledgment of his " papal supremacy" for this recognition 
was as old as Christianity. Order was restored in Constantinople. He 
then sent him words of compliment on his accession. It is contrary to 
the rules of sound argument to presume that Gregory approved of the 
circumstances which led to the change of dynasty. Napoleon grasped 
the Iron crown of Italy, from the altar and put it on his brow, for he 
acknowledged no Donor thereof but his sword. So would Phocas, 
very probably have done with the crown of C, whatever Gre- 
gory might have thought of the act. Moreover, Phocas did not 
hurl Mauritius from the throne. Mauritius abdicated, and the people, 
net the bishop of C. P. made Phocas king, in the place of Mauritius, 
a miser, and a tyrant ; and Gregory rejoiced, not at the disturbances but 
at the restoration of order. My friend now treats these matters as 
light, and incidental. It was he himself who made then principals, 
by the manner in which he introduced them. He was arguing a knotty 
point, the manner in which Rome came to "assume" her high pre- 
rogative over the church. The plain, scriptural truth, that she came 
to it by divine appointment was before his eyes, but he would not see 
it. Is it to be wondered at that he saw in history what was not there ! 
I will say no more on the subject of Joshua. Eusebius confirms, p. 46, 
what I have said. The object of the ministry of the old or of the new 
law, of the coming of Christ, of the shedding of his blood, and all the in- 
stitutions of his religion, was not the setting up of a tabernacle in the wil- 
derness, or the crossing of the Jordan, or the surveying of a piece of 
land and dividing it among a few tribes, but the salvation of man- 
kind, without any exception, or distinction of age, or clime ; and 
this great work of regeneration and redemption is just as important 
now, and will continue so while there are immortal souls to be en- 
lightened and saved, as it was in the days of the apostles. Their 
office must remain, and their successors are charged with it. The 
bishops and their assistant brethren watch over the safety cf the fold, 
and the sovereign pontiff sees that they and their flocks persevere in 
unity. He watches over all. 

Mr. C. persists in saying that the Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians 
&c. &c. agreed in doctrine, and may be considered as the Catholic 



80 DEBATE OS THE 

church. I have already refuted this theory, hut here is Protestant tes- 
timony again to destroy it, and I hope we shall not waste any more 
time on it, for it is too absurd. " No heretic," says Waddington, 
p. 154, " was as likely as the Donatist to lay claim to the name Ca- 
tholic ; yet even a Donatist, while he maintained that the true spirit 
and purity were alone perpetuated in his own communion, would scarce- 
ly have affirmed that that was bona fide the universal church, which 
did not extend beyond the shores of Jfrica, and ivhich had not the ma' 
jority even there." Speaking of the sects in Dauphine and other errorists 
condemned at Arras in 1025, the same author says, (p. 554) "It is 
proper to mention what these opinions really were, which were con 
demned at Arras, lest it should he supposed that they were at variance 
only with the Roman Catholic church, and strictly in accordance with 
apostolic truth." " It was asserted that the sacrament of baptism 
was useless and of no efficacy to salvation, (what does Mr. C. think 
of this 1) that the sacrament of the Lord's supper was equally unne- 
cessary. — It appears that the objections of the heretics on this point 
went beyond the mere denial of the change of substance — that the 
sacred orders of the ministry were not of divine institution — that 
penance was altogether inefficacious — that marriage in general was 
contrary to the evangelical and apostolical laws — that saint-worship is 
to be confined to the apostles and martyrs, &c. &c. so mixed and various 
is the substance of those opinions to which learned writers on this 
subject appeal with so much satisfaction." Again, " they were all taint- 
ed more or less deeply by the poison of Manichaesism : and since it is 
our object to establish a connexion, with the primitive church, we shall 
scarcely attain it through those whose fundamental principle was un- 
equivocally rejected by that church, as irrational and impious." 555. 
Mosheim says, 1st vol. p. 328, " Among the sects that troubled 
the Latin church, this century, (the 12th) the principal place is due to 
the Cathari, or Catharists, whom we have had already occasion to 
mention. This numerous faction, leaving their first residence, which 
was in Bulgaria, spread themselves throughout almost all the European 
provinces, where they occasioned much tumult and disorder. Their 
religion resembled the doctrine of the Manicheans and Gnostics, on 
which account they commonly received the denomination of the former, 
though they differed in many respects from the genuine primitive 
Manicheans. They all indeed, agreed in the following points of doc- 
trine, viz. that matter was the source of ail evil ; that the creator of 
this world was a being distinct from the supreme deity ; that Christ 
was neither clothed with a real body, nor could be properly said to 
have been born, or to have seen death; that human bodies were the 
production of the evil principle, and were extinguished without the 
prospect of a new life. They treated with the utmost contempt all 
the books of the Old Testament, but expressed a high degree of ven- 
eration for the New." Speaking of the Waldenses, p. 332, Mosheim 
says, " They committed the government of the church to bishops, 
presbyters and deacons, but they deemed it absolutely necessary that 
all these orders should resemble exactly the apostles of the divine 
Savior, and be like them illiterate, &c. &c. The laity were divided 
into two classes, one of which contained the perfect and the other the 
imperfect christians." Of another sect, the Pasaginians, Mosheim 
says, p. 333, " They circumcised their followers, and held that the law 
of Moses, in even; thing but sacrifice, was obligatory upon Chris- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 81 

tians." What the same Protestant historian says of the brethren of 
the free spirit is too horrid. It is the foulest of the many foul pages 
he has stained with the history of sects. " They maintained that the 
believer could not sin, let his conduct be ever so horrible and atro- 
cious." The celebrated Ziska, not a Roman Catholic inquisitor, but 
the austere general of the Hussites, another sect cf Protestants, fall- 
ing upon this miserable sect in 1421, "put some to the sword and 
condemned the rest to the flames." Mosheim, 428. " A sect of fana- 
tics called Caputiati, infested Moravia and Burgundy, the diocese cf 
Auxerre, and several other parts of France, in all which places they 
excited much disturbance among the people. They declared publicly 
that their purpose was, to level all distinctions, to abrogate magistra- 
cy, to remove all subordination among mankind, and to restore that 
primitive liberty, that natural equality, which were the inestimable 
privileges of the first mortals." Mosheim, p. 333. Luther repeatedly 
declared that he stood alone, that all antiquity was against him. Here 
are startling facts and no less startling admissions by sound Protes- 
tants. Will my friend insult this enlightened assembly by making up a 
monster-church, a very chimera, of all these sects, and give modern 
Protestants all the honors present and prospective of being the tail of 
the beast ? I would counsel him not to dream of doing so, and them 
to look out for more reputable religious ancestors. 

But the Roman Catholic church has changed at least in discipline. 
Grant it. And what of that 1 Is it not the very nature of discipline that 
it must be modified by times, places, peculiarities of nations and other 
circumstances, in order to be adapted to the wants of man in all the 
varieties of his being] Truth is unsusceptible of change. Like God 
it is always the same. But the form of the dress of the clergy, the color 
of the wine to be used at mass, days of fasting and abstinence, and 
of public meetings for prayer and certain unessential rites in the ad- 
ministration of the sacraments, may be changed. The constitution of 
the church should possess this element of good government. She has 
the power to make these changes, and she has made them as the wants 
cf her children seemed to require. But the doctrine is invariable. 
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but, of it, not an iota shall change. 

As to the deaths occasioned in the election of a pope, I ask again, 
what has that to do with the constitutionality of the office I The pope 
did not slay those people. According to the gentleman's theory, the 
president of this union would have to answer for the blood, if any, 
spilled at his election. I am astonished that such arguments should 
be repeated. I can say with certainty of my venerable predecessor 
that he would not have pursued the course, he did, if the story be 
true, if he had had reason to believe the individuals had never been 
baptized — and if any two or more young people will come to me, who 
have been rightly baptized in Protestant communions, I warrant them, 
if there be no other obstacles, they shall be quickly bound together in 
the indissoluble bonds of matrimony. 

I am perfectly willing to revert to the point cf the supremacy of St 
Peter and the continuance of his high authority in his successors, for it 
is a cardinal doctrine. It solves a thousand lesser points of difficulty, 
and I am happy to argue it again from the New Testament, from 
church history, from reason. I have already quoted scripture for the 
dogma of the supremacy of Peter — " upon this rock will I build my 
church." My friend does not like to approach that rock, — He takes 

u 



82 DEBATE ON THE 

care to keep shy of it. I also quoted " feed my lambs, — feed my 
sheep" — "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven," — 
" Blessed art thou. Simon," — and " when thou art anointed confirm thy 
brethren," &c. All these texts, and more, did I quote, and the gentle- 
man has had my authority before him. I shall now strengthen my 
quotation from the fathers, adducing overwhelming facts to prove that 
Peter was bishop of Rome and that the bishops of that see have ever 
been regarded in the Catholic church as his successors. Many of my 
hearers may suppose that this matter is buried in the night of time — 
that history is either silent, or not sufficiently clear upon it. But 
when they hear the splendid testimonies I am going to adduce, they 
will change their minds on this subject, and confess that, from time 
immemorial, in the very earliest ages, the church was precisely the 
same, in its faith, its sacraments, its hierarchy, its clergy, &c. &c. 
that the Catholic church is at the present day. (Here bishop Purcell 
held up the map of the succession of popes from the first, Peter him- 
self, down to the present pontiff, Gregory XVI. ; the names of all the 
most eminent men in the church ; the date of the establishment of the 
gospel in the various countries of the world, the origin and authors of 
the various heresies and schisms, their condemnation by general coun- 
cils, or synods, &c. &c.) let any other exhibit such an array ! 

Christ Jesus said to his disciples " go, teach all nations." They 
went ! they preached every where, and the world believed ! before 
their death they ordained others whose names are here faithfully re- 
corded. Here is the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius, and according 
to the pun upon his name (you see by us) you will see by him what 
a flood of light irradiates this subject. Eusebius wrote in the 4th 
century, and to remove all suspicion I bring before you the translation 
of his history by a Protestant minister, C. F. Cruse, A. M. Assistant 
Professor of the university of Pennsylvania, 2d. edition, revised and 
corrected by the author. [The reading was interrupted by the half 
hour's expiring.*] 

Four o'clock, P. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

Is the original Greek of Irenaeus extant] [The bisbop intimates, 
4 NoS~\ Of what authority, then, is the version from which he reads 1 
I have never read in Irenaeus nor seen quoted from him a warrant for 
the assumption that Peter was ever bishop of Rome 1 ? But of this 
again — 

After raising such a dust as the gentleman has about Phocas and 
Gregory, it has become necessary for me to re-state my argument. 

Gregory the great wrote to Mauritius, requesting him to induce 
John, bishop of Constantinople, to give up his claim to the title of 
universal father. Mauritius would not do it. Gregory the great, is 
supposed by all antiquity to have harbored a grudge, or bad feeling 
towards Mauritius, because of this ; and therefore his exultation at 
his death, and his easy recognition of the pretensions of his murderer, 
which acquiescence, on his part, secured the compliance of Phocas 
with the wishes of Gregory, and secured to his successors Uie title of 
universal patriarch, or pope — 

[Bishop Purcell here observed, that Phocas was not the murderer 
of Mauritius.] 

* The extract referred to will bs found in a subsequent speech. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 83 

Very well, I have the authority of Gibbon for my assertion — not 
for saying that he killed him by his own hands : but by his authority, 
as he lays to Phocas the blood of Mauritius and his seven children, 
on the principle, qui facit per alterum, facit per se. He does himself 
what he does by an other. The said Phocas did afterwards, Barronius 
being a faithful witness, give the title of universal bishop to Boniface, 
Gregory's successor, and who can infer any thing else from all the 
circumstances, than I have done ? ! 

I thought the gentleman was about to produce authority to prove 
that Sylvester did call the council of Nice. This, I again assert he 
cannot do. If he think he can, let him attempt it, and we will show 
he cannot. We, however, do assert on the authority of Eusebius, and 
all ancient history, that Constantine the great did call the council of 
Nice ; and we affirm on equal authority, that the pope's legate did not 
preside in that council. Whether Hosios did is problematical. It is 
inferred from the fact of his being present : but there is no historic 
authority for it. But all this is very subordinate and of little value. 
The whole question rests upon the inquiry, What office had Peter ? 
What was his ecclesiastical power and patronage ] Was Peter the 
prince of the apostles 1 W r as he made the vicar of Christ ] Ay, this 
is the question ! It requires explicit — nay, positive scripture authori- 
ty — where is it ! 

The gentleman offers several passages to this point. I shall exa- 
mine the prominent texts, and begin with the 16th chapter of Mat- 
thew. — I read from Griesbach's Greek Testament. In this chapter, 
Christ asks his disciples the question, " Who do men say that I am]" 
and afterwards asks them, " But who say ye that I am I" and Peter 
answered : " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ;" " and 
Jesus answered and said unto him, blessed are you, Simon Barjona, 
for flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father, who 
is in heaven : and I say also to you, that you are Peter, and upon this 
rock I will build my congregation and the gates of hades shall not 
prevail against it." Matth. xvi. 13 — 18. 

" Upon this rock :" was Peter this rock ] The words sound much 
alike, (Petros and Petra). Let us examine the passage. One of the 
internal evidences of the truth of the apostolic writings is, that each 
writer has something peculiar to himself. So has every speaker and 
teacher, that has appeared amongst men. Jesus Christ himself had 
hib peculiar characteristics. One of his peculiarities most clearly 
marked by the four evangelists is, that he consecrated every scene 
and circumstance and topic of conversation to religion or morality. A 
few examples, out of many that might be given, must suffice. When 
standing by the sea of Galilee, he says to the fishermen, who were 
casting their nets into the sea : " follow me, and I will make you 
fishers of men." At the well of Samaria, he says to a Samaritan wom- 
an, from whom he asked a drink — M Whoever shall drink of this wa- 
ter shall thirst again ; but whoever drinks of the water that I shall 
give him, shall never thirst : but it shall be in him a well of water 
springing up to eternal life." While with his disciples in the 
temple, and seeing the sheep going up to be sacrificed, he says : " My 
cheep hear my voice, and they follow me ;" and he speaks of himself 
as the true shepherd, who lays down his life for his sheep. His dis- 
ciples having forgotten to take bread, when embarking on the lake, 
and when talking about it, he took occasion to say : *• B*r«ir«Ke «f tW 



84 DEBATE ON THE 

leaven of the Pharisees." When on Mount Olivet, among the vines 
and olives, he says, " I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine- 
dresser." And when looking at the temple, he says : " Destroy this 
temple, and I will build it in three days." — So in the passage before 
us. He asks his disciples an all important question, in reply to which, 
one of them who happens to be named Peter, utters the great truth, 
upon which he is to found his church forever : " Thou art the Christ, 
(the Messiah), the Son of the living God." Jesus turns to him 
L and says: "Thou art stone, and upon this rock (on this great truth 
which flesh and blood has not revealed to thee), I will build my 
church." 

Ej cru IlgT^?, k*u ztti r*vv)i t« ver^a. — " ei su Petros, kai epi taute te petra" 
— i You are Peter and upon ihispetra,\ strikes the ear .of a Grecian as 
* thou art stone and upon this 7-oW^stnkes the ear of an English man ; 
and as we have seen is a part of the Savior's peculiarity. 

The construction of language requires that the word " this" should 
refer to something antecedent different from thou, or you. They are 
different in person and in case. But not only does the Savior's peculiar 
characteristics, and the change of person from ''thou" the personal, 
to this the demonstrative, fix the sense : but other considerations of 
great moment, forbid any other interpretation. For let me ask, why 
did Jesus propound the question to his apostles — why did he elicit 
from them so great a truth, if in the solemn declaration which imme- 
diately follows, he meant to pass by that truth and allude to Peter 
alone. This would be a solecism unprecedented — a case unparalleled. 
The whole authority of the christian religion and all its excellency is 
embraced in the radical ideas which had been for the first time pro- 
nounced by the lips of man. There are, indeed, but three cardinal 
ideas in all christian doctrine : for there can be but three cardinal 
ideas about any being. Two of these are distinctly embodied in Pe- 
ter's confession of faith. The whole three are, 1st the person, 2nd 
the office, and 3rd the character of Christ. Beyond these — person 
office and character, what conception can mortals have of our Redeemer 1 
Peter mouthed of these, the two which gave value to thethiid — The 
person and the mission of Jesus. He w T as the first mortal who, dis- 
» tinctly and intelligibly avowed the faith, in the person and mission of 
Jesus the Nazarene, upon which the empire of the ransomed race 
shall stand forever. This is the good confession spoken by Jesus 
himself at the hazard of his life, before Pontius Pilate, of which 
Paul speaks in terms of the highest admiration. 

This great truth deservedly stands forward under the bold meta- 
phor of the Rock. But still more creditable to this truth, — not " flesh 
and blood," but the Heavenly Father first uttered it from Heaven. On 
the banks of the Jordan, when Jesus had honored his Father in his 
baptism, his Father honored him ; and was it not worthy to be honor- 
ed by proclaiming it from the opening sky, " This is my Son, the be- 
loved in whom I delight," while the descending Dove marked him 
out 1 A Pagan poet said, 

"Never introduce a God unless upon an occasion worthy of him;"* 

And who feels not the propriety of such an introduction here ; for 
when first spoken, no angel in heaven, nor man on earth, could intro- 
duce the Messiah, in his proper person, but his own Father. Now, 



* Nee Deus iuterst.t nisi dignus vindice nodus— Incident. — Hor. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 83 

because Peter was the first to utter it, Jesus says to him : " I will give 
to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall 
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose 
on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 

What a controversy there has been about these keys. Jesus gave 
them to Peter alone — not to him, his heirs, and successors forever ! I 
was denoted as heterodox a few years since, because I alleged that 
the opening of the reign or kingdom of heaven, by Peter to Jews and 
Gentiles, was the true exposition of the keys. But I am glad to see 
this view promulged now from various reputable sources, even from 
Trinity College, Dublin. Peter opened the kingdom of heaven on 
the day of Pentecost, and by divulging a secret never told to that day, 
viz. " Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has 
made that Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." This 
annunciation of the coronation, or Christing, that is anointing of Je- 
sus king and governor of the universe, was a new revelation made on 
the Pentecostian morn by Peter. He declared remission on that day 
to 3000 souls, and introduced them into the kingdom of the Messiah. 
Again, when it pleased God to visit the Gentiles in the family of 
Cornelius, a Roman centurion; an angel sent from heaven, command- 
ed him to send for Peter to Joppa to come and tell him and his rela- 
tions "words by which himself and his friends might be saved." He 
did so. He sent, and Peter came. Why thus call upon Peter 1 Be- 
cause Christ's gifts are without repentance. He had given him the 
keys. He therefore must open the two-leaved gate, and introduce 
both Jews and Gentiles into the kingdom. This being once done, 
needs not to be repeated. The gates of heaven have not since been 
locked. There is no mere use for the keys. Peter has them yet. 
He took them to heaven with him. He did not will them to any heir 
cr successor. The popes are fighting for shadows. Heaven never 
trusted such gentry with the keys. They might take into their heads 
to lock the heretics out. I thank God that he gave them to Peter, 
that Peter opened the gates of the kingdom of heaven to us all, and 
that as the popes cannot shut them, we do not need them a second 
time. Peter will guard them, till he who has the key of David, who 
opens and none can shut, will appear a second time. Thus we dis- 
pose rationally, and I think scripturally, of this grand text. 

The next text upon which confidence is placed by my opponent, is 
where Christ says to Peter, 4i Feed my sheep, feed my lambs." 
Language has no meaning but from the context. Every word serves 
to fix the meaning of its contextural associates. We must read the 
21st chapter of John's Testimony, from the beginning, if we would 
correctly understand this passage. The facts are : Peter and some 
of his brethren had returned to Galilee, disconcerted and overwhelm- 
ed with the events of the day. They felt themselves destitute, forsa- 
ken, and in need. While their master was with them he provided 
for them in some way. He could say, when I sent you without scrip 
or staff or money, did you lack any thing 1 They answered, no. But 
he was gone, and they knew not what to do. In this distress, Peter 
says u I am going a fishing," and the rest accompany him : but they 
toiled all night and caught nothing. In the morning they see the Sa- 
vior walking on the shore ; they know him not. He says to thc:n, 
44 Children, have you any meat 1 ?" They answer, "no." He tells them 
to cast on the other side of the bark. They do so and take a large 
H 



86 DEBATE ON THE 

number of fish. Peter, when he knew it was the Lord, girt his fish- 
erman's garment around him, leaped into the lake, and swam ashore. 
They dine together, and after they had eaten to satiety, Jesus says to 
Peter, "Do you love me more than these ?" 

My construction of these words is, "Do you love me more than 
these fish, or these victuals." He then says to Peter, " Feed my 
lambs :" and the fact before him and all the circumstances say, I will 
feed you. 

The bishop's construction is, "Do you love me more than these dis- 
ciples love me ?" But how could Peter answer such a question ? 
Was he omniscient to know how much his companions loved his mas- 
ter. In that case he would have said, "Lord I love thee, but I do not 
know how much my brethren love thee ; they also love thee, but I 
know not whether I love thee more than they do." But suppose he 
could have known, then I ask, was it comely to ask so invidious a 
question 1 Would not they have felt themselves disparaged, if Peter 
had said, "Yes Lord, I love thee more than all my fellow apostles love 
thee!!!" 

Peter had erred. He had become discontented — had forgotten his 
duty to his master, and had betaken himself to his former occupation 
of fishing, and induced the rest to join him. Christ asks him sol- 
emnly, " Do you love me more than these fish, these boats, nets, ap- 
paratus, or these victuals, this worldly employment 1 if so, cease to 
spend your time in providing food for yourself; but feed my sheep 
and lambs, and I will provide for you." Besides, he having caught 
nothing till the Master appeared, was a very striking lesson, which I 
presume Peter never forgot. I confess, I think the gentleman's inter- 
pretation of sheep as bishops, and lambs as laity, most singularly ar- 
bitrary and fantastic, and needs not a grave reply. So we dispose of 
the second grand text on which the church of Rome has leaned with 
so much confidence for so many ages. 

My learned opponent has not yet afforded us evidence for his as- 
sumption of official supremacy for Peter. These texts reach not the 
case. They do not institute a new office bestowed on Peter but are 
tokens of esteem, for reasons personal. Every privilege he received 
was on account of some personal pre-eminence, not because of an of- 
fice which he held. The canon law has decreed that a personal priv- 
ilege doth follow the person and is extinguished with the person. 
Now as all the honors vouchsafed Peter were in consequence of his 
promptness, courage, penitence, zeal, &c. they never can become the 
reasons of an hereditary office. His supremacy, or rather superiori- 
ty, or primacy, most naturally arose from his being one of the first, if 
not the first convert — the oldest of Christ's disciples ; because he was 
prompt, decided, courageous, zealous, ardent, and above all, he was 
a married man, had a wife and family. And although this fact might 
not comport with his being the fountain of papal authority, it obtain- 
ed him an honor above John the bachelor, and all the bachelors of 
that age !! 

Once more on this subject — let me ask, who made a more volunta- 
ry surrender of himself to his master — who more promptly forsook 
all that he had, than he — who, when his Lord asked, will ye also leave 
me, with more ardor said ; " Lord, to whom shall we go but to thee ; 
for thou hast the words of eternal life 1" Who more courageously, 
in the time of peril, drew his sword to defend his Master ] who, when 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 87 

the Savior foretold his own sufferings and indignities, more affection- 
ately and devotedly exclaimed, in the warmth of his heart, " Lord, it 
shall not be so done unto thee !" 

It is true that this ardor of disposition, this promptness, this deci- 
sion of character, sometimes betray their possessor into errors ; yet 
who will not say, give me the man of energy and decision, and ardor 
of character ? John was meek as a dove ; he was innocent and amia- 
ble as a lamb, and the Lord loved him ; but those bold and stern, and 
manly virtues he wanted, which gave so much interest to the charac- 
ter of Peter ; and so admirably fitted him to stand forward and fore- 
most, amongst his colleagues and fellow apostles. — [Time expired.] 

Half-past 4 o'clock, P. M. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

Do you love me more than these fish !! My brethren, if the subject 
were not too serious, I should call my friend's construction a fish story ! 

Jesus Christ said to Peter, " lovest thou me more than these]" plus 
his — what, if fish 1 (i£oi>*o) plus quam hos. There is an end to all 
that argument. 

Mr. Campbell. That is the Latin version. Let us have the Greek. 

Bishop Purcell. The Greek is not more plain, nor will it provo 
your interpretation less revolting, less contrary to the obvious and 
more common interpretation of the text. Sad conclusion this, which 
my learned opponent reserved as his main reliance, for the last hour 
of the day ! And is it thus that he proves the church of Rome to be 
neither catholic, apostolic, nor holy, but an apostacy from the only 
true, holy and apostolic church of Christ 1 ? He is heartily welcome 
to the proselytes this argument may gain to his tottering cause. 
Let learned Protestants now claim their champion's services in the 
difficult- task of interpreting the scripture — or let them, as I have pro- 
phesied they would do, repudiate his advocacy. 

The change of name from Simon to Peter, shows that Christ chose 
him to be, beyond the other apostles, a rock, or more firm, more con- 
stant, more immoveable than they — and that forever — in the confession 
of his divinity, his real presence with his church and all the other 
truths he had vouchsafed to reveal to the world. A rock does not 
melt. — The winds may beat and the rains may fall, but the house 
built upon a rock will stand, not for a few years, but forever. And 
as the rock, in the physical order loses not its nature, so neither do the 
promises of Christ lose their efficacy. " Thou art Peter, (or a rock) 
and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it." Matthew xvi. 18. 

A professor of Andover College has published a volume, I think it 
is entitled " Elements of Sacred Criticism." I have examined this 
work, but my memory retains not the author's name, — perhaps some 
of the learned gentlemen present may aid it by the suggestion — how- 
ever, he substantiates my interpretation, or rather that of all ages, by 
incontrovertible argument. And I confess the American College has, 
in this instance, a decided superiority, both in sound criticism and or- 
thodoxy, over the " dumb sister," as the English and Scotch universi- 
ties have invidiously, or facetiously, named Trinity College, Dublin. 

There is one plausible difficulty, against the testimony of Peter's 
having fixed his residence at Rome, which the gentleman has overlook- 
ed, viz. that Paul does not mention Peter in his epistle to theRomans, 



88 DEBATE ON THE 

To explain this, it is only necessary to observe, Paul wrote A. D. 57. 
in the reign of Claudius, when Peter was absent from Rome ; and 
this the illustrious convert of Damascus knew. But why waste time 
on a subject undisputed for fifteen hundred years. Pearson, Grotius, 
Usher, Hammond, Blondel, Scaliger, Casaubon, Dumoulin, Petit, 
Basnage, all agree that Peter transferred his see to Rome and there 
suffered martyrdom. * 

And here another objection is overruled ; he said there had been 
contests among the apostles, who should be greatest. He said that 
if Peter had confessed that he loved him most, a greater controversy 
would have arisen. But there was good cause to the contrary. An- 
drew saw him first — John reposed on his bosom, &c. — for many rea- 
sons, these disputes may have arisen — surely such objections after so 
great a mass of testimony deserved not serious attention. 

1 have long ago seen, in a little work written in Philadelphia, the 
remarks of my friend about the Savior's saying he was the vine, when 
among the vines, on mount Olivet, &c. &c. This is not therefore orig- 
inal or new. 

I now take up a connected argument on the apcstolicity of the church, 
for I wish this matter to go before the public in its peculiar strength. 
I look upon it as the most powerful argument that can be advanced in 
favor of the Catholic church. I read from Fletcher. His style is good. 

" Christ Jesus had called the apostles 'fishers of men,'' he had told them to 
* go and preach the gospel to every creature,' assuring them, at the same time, 
that 'all power was given to him in heaven, and on earth,' and that * himself 
would be always with them.'' Animated by this commission, and these assurances, 
an 1 tired too with the love of God, and an ardent charity for men, these heroic 
victims of benevolence, did * go forth and preach.' They preached; and although 
the world with all its passions, prejudices and superstitions was leagued against 
them; — although its doctrines, which they preached, were repugnant to all the 
bad propensities of the heart, and exceeded far the measure of the human under- 
standing; yet did an immense portion of the public, of the corrupted and 
the vicious, of the learned and the enlightened, hear them, and believe. They 
preached; and the love of vice was converted into zeal for innocence; prejudice, 
into the desire of truth: superstition, into the warmth of piety. Vice itself was 
exalted into the heroism of sanctity; and every defilement done away, which cor- 
ruption had introduced into the sanctuary of the heart. They preached; and 
Satan, like a thunderbolt, was hurled from his throne; his temples razed; his 
altars overturned; and idolatry, abashed and trembling, fled from those scenes, 
which it had so long disgraced by its follies, and infected by its abominations. 
They preached; and the Universe was changed! The spectacle which they exhi- 
bited was new; the spectacle of exalted virtue and consummate wisdom. Men 
beheld the virtue and it edified them; they listened to the wisdom, and it con- 
vinced them. In this manner did the first apostles of Jesus Chiist completely 
realize the figure of the fshers of men,' completely verify the assurance which 
their divine Master had given them, that ' himself would be always with tltem,' 
completely illustrate that passage of St. Paul, in which he says, ' God employs 
the weak to confound the strong, and the foolish to confute the wise' It is the 
call and mission of the apostles, which are the sources of the call and mission 
of their successors; and it is the successes that attended the preaching of the 
apo c tles, that are the proof, not only of the divinity of their mission, but of the 
mission of those who have replaced, and shall yet replace them till the end of 
time. In religion, as every thing was originally apostolical, so every thing to 
merit veneration, must continue apostolical. According to the definition and 
import of apostolicity, it is necessary that the church which was founded by the 
apostles, and the mission also which was imparted to the apostles, should, 
without destruction, or interruption, have been perpetuated to the age we live 
in, firm amid revolutions, unchanged amid changes. 

I have said, that to ascertain in the Catholic church this stability of duration, 
a more positive nroof cannot be adduced, than the spectacle of its pastors (who 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 89 

compose a large portion of its members, and whose functions are the most im- 
portant duties of religion) regularly in each age, succeeding to each other, and 
transmitting to each, the mission which originally had been inherited from the 
hands of the apostles. The only difficulty here, is by the light of evidence to 
establish these important facts. Well, my brethren, and this is what, without 
any difficulty, the Catholic exults to do. To do it we need only to consult the 
records of history ; those records which the Protestant himself considers authentic. 
The light of history is a testimony, which, beyond the power of reasonable doubt, 
attests the regular and perennial succession of the Catholic ministry. 

The apostles, whom Christ had sent, as his Father had sent him; and with 
whom, likewise, he had promised to remain all days to the end of the world; in 
consequence of the above commission and assurance, chose for themselves co- 
operators and successors in their sacred ministry: — co-operators, in order to 
assist them in the government of the churches which their zeal had planted ; — 
successors, to whom, on occasion of their departure from this scene of their 
labors, they might resign the burden of their functions, and the honor of their 
sees. Now, fortunately for the cause of religion, we have in the annals of 
history, and in the writings of the learned, the accounts very carefully preserved, 
of the resignations, which the apostles made of their functions and sees to their 
successors; and of the resignations also which their successors' successors made, 
during a series of ages, to the pastors, who, in long order, have till the present 
age, continually replaced each other. Among these accounts, that which of all 
others is the most interesting, and which religion has preserved with the nicest 
care, is the history of the continuation until to-day, of the apostolic powers which 
Christ Jesus conferred upon the prince of the apostles, St. Peter. We have, 
thanks to that Providence, which watches over the church, and which marks its 
paths with beams of light, we have the proof of this continuation so luminously 
attested, so evident, that not hostility can contest, nor incredulity doubt it. 
Important testimony! itself a bright feature in the divinity of the church; a tes- 
timony, which, proving immediately the apostolicity of the mission of its supreme 
pastors, proves also immediately, yet directly, the apostolicity of the mission of 
all its other pastors. For, if you consult the rolls of history, you will tind that 
with our supreme pastors, the Catholic pastors of every age, and of every nation, 
were always united in communion; acknowledging their supereminence, and 
revering their jurisdiction; considering them as the great source, after Christ, 
of spiritual power, and the centre of spiiitual unity. 

There have been several distinguished writers, who, incapable of misrepresen- 
tation, and possessing the means of knowing the history of the successors of St. 
Peter, and the order of their succession, have carefully handed down to us, each 
to his own time, the lists of these illustrious men. The first of these I believe, 
who is known to have preserved the important catalogue, is St. Trenceus. 

After Tertuilian, the next who continues the catalogue of St. Peter's succes- 
sors, is St. Optatus. He brings it down to the time of Siricius; that is, to the 
year three hundred and eighty-four. l In this one chair,' says the saint, speak- 
ing- of the see of Rome, i sat FeterJirst,io him succeeded TAnus,to him Clement, 

SfC To Liberius succeeded Damasus; to Damasus, iSiricius, the present 

pontiff, with whom we and all the world hold commvnion. And now,'' he adds, 
addressing himself exultingly to the Donatist, ' and now, do you give an account 
of 'the origin of 'your sees, you, that pretend to call yourselves the Catholic church.' 
(Contra Parmen.) 

St. Austin is another writer, who had attended to the succession, and has preserv- 
ed for us, the list of St. Peter's successors; deriving from the long order of their con- 
tinuance, the same conclusions as did Irenasus, Tertuilian, and Optatus. The list 
which the Saint has communicated, reaches down to his own time, to the pontifi- 
cate of Innocent the first, in the year four hundred and two, and in its earlier 
eras, it exactly corresponded with the list which I have alluded to already. 
* Come,' says he to the Donatists, ' come, brethren, if it be that you wish to be in- 
grafted on the vine. 1 weep to see you as you are; lopped off' from its sacred 
stock. Count up the pontiffs in the chair of Peter, and hi that order see which 
succeeded which. This is that Rock, over which, the proud gates of hell cannot 
prevail.' 

Hence, without the necessity of producing further testimonies, it follows, if 
men will not contest the authority, or call in question the veracity of some of 
the fairest characters, that the christian world reveres; it follows that from the 
H2 13 



90 DEBATE ON THE 

time of St. Peter to the time of Innocent, in the fifth century, there existed in 
the see of Rome, an uninterrupted chain of pastors, and a continuation of an 
apostolic mission. The continuation of that same apostolic mission which Christ 
Jesus had imparted to St. Peter. Only he, can doubt this, whose incredulity 
doubts of every thing. 

And has the chain of Roman pastors, — for this is now the only point which we 
must investigate, — been continued and extended from the time of Innocent the 
first, to the present day; an interval, it is true, extremely long, and filled up with 
storms, and changes, and revolutions and great events? Yes, the chain has been 
continued and extended all this whole length of period ; from Innocent, who 
consoled the great Chrysostom, under the persecution of an ambitious princess, 
to Pius the seventh, who himself is the heroic victim of the persecution of a re- 
lentless victor. Indeed, the fact is so obvious, it is not even contested. It is 
conceded by the men, who are interested to deny it. To be assured of it, you 
need only to consult the political annals of any considerable state, or to appeal 
in our historians to the mere tablets of chronology. You will find that all give 
to our Roman pontiffs the same line and length of succession, which I here 
assign them. Their conduct has been always prominent; their influence always 
conspicuous. Few were the great events and transactions, in which, either 
from a principle of piety, or sometimes of ambition, they did not bear a part. 

Yes, but if prompted by curiosity, you will give yourselves the trouble to con- 
sult the annals of the church, there you will trace, more distinctly still, the evi- 
dence of the truth, which I am now establishing. There attending to the occur- 
rences of each epoch, you will observe, that the helm which had been confided 
to the trust of Peter, is with the greatest regularity transferred from hand to 
hand; and with pious care, confided to the trust of each successor. You may 
mark the name, and read the character of each individual, who directed it, the 
date of the day when it was committed to his guidance; and the hour, almost, 
when he resigned. In short, admitting the accuracy of the lists which have been 
preserved by Irenaeus, Tertullian, &c, you trace in the annals of the church, a 
clear, plain, and incontestible evidence of a line of Roman pontiff's, the succes- 
sors of St. Peter, during the long course of above eighteen hundred years. 

If the ancient fathers, in their times, and at the distance only of a few years, 
so triumphantly produced the list of these holy men, evincing by it the divinity 
of the church, and the apostolicity of the mission of its pastors, and by it confu- 
ting the novelty and claims of heresy ; if Tertullian, impressed with the force of 
this argument, victoriously called out to the hosts of innovators, " shew us any 
thing like this. Unfold and shew us the origin of your churches; shew us the list 
of your bishops, in regular order from, the days of the apostles, succeeding to 
each other;" if he could say to them, " Who are you? Whence is your origin de- 
rived? What have you to do in my estate? lam the possessor. My posses- 
sion is ancient. I am the heir of the apostles:" if he could say all this; and 
from this, after scarcely the lapse of two centuries and the succession of hardly 
a dozen pontiffs, demonstrate the apostolicity of the church; with how much 
more reason and with how much more effect, might I, or any other Catholic, 
demonstrate its apostolicity at present, at present when the continuance of Pe- 
ter's successors forms a chain, of above eighteen hundred years, and their num- 
ber fills up a list of above two hundred and fifty pontiffs'? Oh! were only a Ter- 
tullian now, or an Austin, standing in the same situation in which I am placed 
before you, addressing you from this seat of truth and pressing the same argu- 
ment, which I do to day, upon your attention; and pressing it recommended by 
the circumstances which I have just referred to, how the thoughts would glow, 
and the words burn, with which they w r ould convey the exultation of these feel- 
ings to you! How the cause of truth would triumph in their eloquence! With 
what redoubled enthusiasm would they exclaim, " let heresy shew any thing like 
this?" In reality, if the argument which these great men have employed to 
prove the apostolicity of the church, proved aught in their times, it certainly 
proves the same, and a great deal more, at present. 

To the thoughtful and the philosophic mind, there is much, I have already ob- 
served, to admire in the stability of the church amid the fluctuation of human 
things. It is the same in regard to the long continuance of the successors- of St. 
Peter. Wisdom and reason, when they consider it, are struck with wonder ; 
and piety discovers in it the visible effect of an Almighty superintendance. The 
institutions of men soon perish. The modifications of human policy do not ion£ 



ROMAN CATIIOLIC RELIGION. 9l 

retain their forms. Nothing human is permanent. To contemplate, therefore, an 
order of pontiffs reaching the whole length of eighteen centuries unchanged, 
whilst every thing else was changing; uninterrupted, whilst all other institutions 
were perishing, — is a spectacle at once striking, awful, and impressive ; calculat- 
ed to inspire the protestant himself, if not with the conviction of its divinity, at 
least with a conviction of its wisdom ; with a respect fur its strength ; with a 
veneration for its antiquity. Let only reason cast a look into the annals of time, 
or recall to its recollection the events and revolutions, which during the lapse of 
eighteen centuries, have taken place on the theatre of life. During that interval, 
in every kingdom of the civilized woild, every government has changed its form ; 
every dynasty resigned its power ; every empire sunk to ruin. Rome itself, dur- 
ing it, has experienced in particular, all the vicissitudes of human instability : 
has been ruled alternately by Consuls, Emperors, Kings and Exarchs : has been 
taken, plundered, sacked and reduced almost to a heap of ashes. In short, during 
it, every thing that is human and political, — the work of the power and ambition, 
of the wisdom and art of men, has either perished or undergone a variety of al- 
terations — Kingdoms, states, cities, monuments, laws, opinions, customs, here- 
sies. Nought but the succession of our pontiffs, and the institutions of our holy 
religion, have remained unaltered. These alone, amid the general revolution ; 
amid the storms of war ; the ravages of passion ; the conflicts of heresy, subsist 
undecayed and undecaying. They even subsist in spite of all those evils ; 
though assailed by the violence of persecution ; though combated by the machi- 
nations of passion ; though attacked by the artifices of error ; though assaulted by 
the combined efforts of vice, Satan and the world. Surely prejudice itself will 
own it, — a succession of Pastors thus perpetuated for eighteen centuries, and per- 
petuated amid such obstacles, is not the effect of chance, nor of earthly policy; 
not the creation of ambition, nor the offspring of worldly wisdom. r ihe only 
method of accounting rationally for it, is to allow, that it is the result of a divine 
institution ; and the consequence of that assurance given by ourgreat Redeemer 
to his apostles, that he would be with them all days, to the end cfthe world; — or 
in other words, that it is the result and the proof of an apostolic mission. 

From the evidences of the apostolicity of the church of Rome, is inferred the 
evidence of the apostolicity of the various other Catholic churches, which are 
disposed throughout the universe. In reality, they are all of them the parts of 
one whole ; the branches of one tree ; the streams of one fountain ; the rays of 
one sun. They all form only one communion, whose centie end head is the 
church of Rome. , Of these churches, some were established by the apostles 
themselves, and their immediate successors ; — some and a very considerable pait, 
by the successors of St. Peter, the Roman pontiffs, who in each age have with pi- 
ous zeal, deputed missionaries to preach the gospel in almost every region of the 
globe. But in every age, and in every region, the churches that were thus 
planted, were only considered as apostolical, or as portions of the true church, 
from the evidence of their union with the church of Rome. It is the- re mark of 
St. Jerome, ; that no bishop was ever acknowledged io be a lav fid bishop, 
except in as much, as he was united in communion with the chair of i$t. 
Peter." 

And why may I not adduce as another evidence of the apostolic mission of 
our pastors, the venerable subsistence of a multitude of other churches, which, 
without having lasted from the age, which saw the apostles live, have still lasted 
from the ages that are not long subsequent to it 1 This is the case with several 
churches in Spain, Italy, France, &c. In Spain, the churches of Toledo, Corco 
va, &c~. in Italy, those of Milan, Naples, &c. in France, those of Lyons, Tours, 
&c. have subsisted from the early ages of christian fervor ; from those ages which 
are often denominated apostolical, down to the present period of degeneracy. 
Their annals, more accurately preserved than the annals of civil governments, 
exhibit to our astonished, but gratified reason, a line of pastors during this whole 
length of ages — unbroken and uninterrupted — uninjured by the violence of per- 
secutions, as well as unimpaired by the sunshine of prosperity ; a line of pastors 
that in canonical succession have till the present day, replaced each other. 
These are monuments of stability, compared with which profane history has 
nothing similar ; Protestantism nothing analogous. These too attest the apostol- 
icity of the mission of cur pastors ; and the apostolicity consequently of our 
church. And now once more, let it be recollected, in relation to all these churches, 
that their founders, ?;nd the successors of their founder?, were In communion with 



92 DEBATE ON THE 

the see of Rome: — the former deputed perhaps immediately by it ; the latter ex- 
ulting always in their union with it as the best proof of the apostolicity of their 
own delegation." 

[ The above quotation was read in parts, in two different speeches ; but it has been 
thought proper to insert it entire, here.] 

I close here. To-morrow is the sabbath of our God. Let us de- 
vote the remainder of the day to the preparation of our souls for its 
holy duties. 



MONDAY, January 16th, Half past 9 o'clock, A. M. 
Mr, Campbell rises — 

It is a trite and a true observation, that the material universe is re- 
solvable into a very few elementary principles. And not a few of our 
wisest philosophers suppose that the time may yet come, in the pro- 
gress of chemical science, when material nature will be resolved into 
some two, or three rudimentary elements. The sciences, too, mental 
and moral, are all resolvable into a few great cardinal principles. 

The papal empire itself depends also upon a few points, indeed, up- 
on one great point, and that relates to the office upon which the whole 
superstructure rests. The most fundamental question is not whether 
the apostle Peter was invested with the office of pope, or vicar of 
Christ; but rather whether there ever was such an office at all. On this 
question we have not proceeded in the most logical manner. I have 
been compelled to approach it at different times, and by different ave- 
nues. My opponent has not adverted to the rules of this discussion. 
I am compelled to lead, and he to follow. He can only lawfully reply 
to such matter as I introduce.' But instead of replying to my argu- 
ments, already offered, he read you some dissertations upon succession 
to an office, not yet canvassed and established. This reading of for- 
eign discussions instead of replying to me is contrary to our rules and 
most illogical. I hope we shall have no more of it. What was read 
on Saturday afternoon on the question of succession is clearly irrele- 
vant. Before we contend about succession, the question is, What is 
to be succeeded to 1 We have had seven presidents, and the succes- 
sion is indisputable; yet the office depends not upon the seven incum- 
bents, nor upon their rightful succession ; but upon what is written in 
the constitution — upon the positive and express institution of the office. 

If it is not found in the constitution, succession is of no virtue : 
however unbroken and orderly it may be, the present incumbent has 
no power. The grand question then is, Is there in the constitution of 
the Christian churchy in the New Covenant, or last Testament, a chair 
of primacy, or superintendence ? This is the logical and the cardinal 
question. On this single point rest all the fortunes of the papacy in 
an enlightened community. I wish all to perceive it, and I will pre- 
sent it in different forms. The first question is, Has Jesus Christ ap- 
pointed the office of pope? The second, Who was the first officer ? Third, 
Was there a succession or darned ? and fourth, Has that succession been 
preserved uncorrupt to the present day ? In this way our reason, or 
common sense, or logic arranges the matter; and in this way only can 
it be rationally and scripturally decided. With all men of sense, the 
controversy will hang on this point. A failure here is ruin to the 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 93 

cause. If this point cannot be proved, it is as useless to contest oth- 
ers, as it would be to finish a house that is built upon the ice. Strike 
off the head and the body perishes. Yet this capital point rests upon 
an inference ! 

How would an American like to be told that the office of president 
depended upon an inference ] that there was no provision for it in the 
constitution — that it was inferred from twenty clauses, scattered here 
and there in as many sections'? Could it be possible, that the 
greatest office in this nation — the very head of this government, should 
rest on the construction of these clauses; that there is no chapter in 
the constitution, expressly creating the office ] Yet, this is precisely 
the case with the pope. The gentleman does not claim for him a po- 
sitive grant in the New Testament. He must acknowledge that there 
is no such office distinctly asserted — that it depends on the reasonings 
of fallible men to ferret it out. Here I must expose the nakedness of 
the land and sweep from the arena the dust of tradition, which blinds 
the eyes of implicit believers. 

It is said by the Romanists that a belief in the supremacy of the 
pope is essential to salvation. Boniface VIII. decrees in his canon 
law in the words following: 

44 Moreover we declare, and say, and define, and pronounce to every h&maa 
creature, that it is altogether necessary to salvation to be subject to the Roman 
pontiff." 

It appears, if not pedantic, at least awkward to read Latin to an 
English audience. However, my learned opponent, so often sets me 
the example, that he will allow me to quote this important decree : 

44 Subesse Romano Pont[fici omnis Iwmance creatvrce decluramus, dicimvs, 
definimus, et pronunciamvs omrino esse necessVate salutis." 

It is then solemnly decreed that a belief in, and submission to, the 
Roman pontifTis essential to salvation. Ought, not, then, his authority 
to be as clearly pointed out in the Bible as the mission of Jesus 
Christ] for the person and mission and sacrifice of Christ are to us 
useless, without faith in the pope. Again, of what use is the Bible, 
without this belief; and especially, if so important a matter is so ob- 
scurely expressed in it as to rest upon a mere inference] Does the 
person and Office of Christ depend on a mere inference] Is it not as- 
serted and re-asserted, a hundred times by the voices of all the pro- 
phets and apostles of both Testaments ] In the Jewish economy, the 
high Priest was on earth : but in our economy he is in Heaven. There 
was truth in the type, and there must be truth in the anti-type. Yet 
every thing concerning that priesthood was positively and expressly 
ordained. The office, the officer, the succession, and the means of 
keeping the blood pure. For, No man dare "take that office upon 
himself, but he that was called of God, as was Aaron." Aaron then 
was distinctly called to be a high priest. Now we arcrue that if we 
had a high priest on earth under our high Priest in heaven, and if salva- 
tion hang upon obedience to him : it ought to be as clear as that of Aarcn. 
But in reference to the Old Testament priesthood, we find every 
thing distinctly and unequivocally stated, Exodus xxviii. 1. "Tako 
Aaron and his sons from among the children of Israel, that he and they 
may minister to me in the priest's office." Again, xl. 13. "And thou 
shalt sanctify Aaron and his sons, that he may minister to me in the 
priest's office; and their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priest- 
hood throughout their generations." How often in the books of the 



94 DEBATE ON THE 

law, and in the subsequent history of the Jews, as it is in 1 Chron. 23d 
and 24th chapters, do we find the unequivocal institution and records 
of this priesthood ! 

But it is not only in a distinct and unequivocal call and consecra- 
tion, but in the subsequent care evinced in sustaining this appoint- 
ment, that we see the necessity of such a positive and express cove- 
nant and understanding. The rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, 
and the destruction, by a miraculous interposition, of themselves and 
of their company, together with two hundred and fifty princes of Israel, 
for seeking to invade the office, is another solemn attestation of the 
divine erection of this office, and the certain call of Aaron's family. 

Again : The appointment of God to select an almond rod for each 
tribe, and to inscribe the name of each of the twelve families upon 
those rods, every tribe's name upon a separate rod, and the miraculous 
budding and blossoming and almond-bearing of Aaron's rod, in the 
course of a single night, was another settlement of this matter, so spe- 
cial, supernatural, and divine, as to put it to rest forever. Here we 
ought to read in full the 16th and 17th chapters of Numbers ; but we 
have only time to refer to them. Thus by a positive call, and two 
splendid and awfully glorious miracles, was the office of the high 
priesthood established in Israel. 

And may we not ask, that if as Boniface has defined, and all Roman 
Catholics believe, 'that there is no salvation, but in the admission of the 
divine call of the popes of Rome ,*' ought not the institution of a new 
order to be as clearly pointed out, and sustained in the new law, as it 
was in the old ] ! 

But my opponent has to concede that there is no such positive or 
express institution of St. Peter's chair, nor of his call and consecra- 
tion, nor any law of succession whatever in the New Testament ; and 
that it rests wholly upon inference. Now, if no man can take this 
honor upon himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron, where 
is the office and the authority of the popes of Rome] ! There is for it 
no such call. Or will my friend say that mere inference or assump- 
tion is a proper foundation for such a call and office 1 

On Saturday evening I began the examination of the premises from 
which is inferred this high and responsible office ; and so far, I think, 
proved that he cannot even find a good logical inference for it. In 
Matthew xvi. we found no support to the idea that the church of Jesus 
Christ was to be built upon the flesh and blood and bones of Peter; 
neither upon his person nor office. We saw that every rule of gram- 
mar — that the construction of language forbade such a transition as 
was necessary to the hypothesis. To have addressed Peter in the 
second and third persons as both present and absent, in the same 
breath, is wholly unprecedented. To have spoken of him, and to 
him at one time, in one period, and on a matter so cardinal as making 
him the foundation of his church, is not to be admitted on the autho- 
rity of mere assumption, without a single case parallel in all holy writ 
to lay along side of it. 

The case in no rational point of view will endure such violence. 
Jesus asked for a confession, Peter gave it. The conversation turned 
upon that confession, and not upon Peter. The comment ought to 
have been upon the text, and not upon him that gave it. It was upon 
the text and not uoon the preacher. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 95 

We Protestants say that the church is founded on the thing con- 
fessed. Christ himself is, indeed, the rock; hut figuratively the truth 
which represents him. I was struck with astonishment when I heard 
my worthy opponent say, that Peter was the rock, and Christ only a 
stone in this spiritual temple ! 

[Bishop Purcell here explained, ' that he had said that Christ was 
the corner stone which was to strengthen and give consistency to the 
foundation; and Peter the rock which was to strengthen and give con- 
sistency to the superstructure.'] Mr. Campbell proceeded : 

Christ the corner stone! and Peter the rock!! Does this help the 
matter 1 

What says 1 Cor. iii. "Other foundation can no man lay than what 
is already laid," — very Peter ! ! No, indeed ; but Jesus Christ him- 
self is the corner stone, the rock, the foundation 1 Then Peter is but 
a stone, as his name imports. But there were eleven other stones of 
equal value: for, says the Holy Spirit, the church is built upon the 
foundation of the apostles — all the^ apostles ; and of the prophets too ! 
When, then, all these stones are at the foundation, and Christ the chief 
corner, where is the room for Peter the rock % 

But, we have other expressions that illustrate Matthew xvi. Look- 
ing at the temple one day, Jesus said to those before him, "Destroy 
this temple and I will build it again in three days." W T ere the per- 
sons he addressed in the second person and the temple the same thing? 
Here, then, are the persons addressed, the subject of conversation, and 
himself — you, (the addressed,) and the temple, (himself.) So have 
we Peter, his confession, and Christ the builder of the church, in the 
passage before us. They understood by his question that he spoke of 
his body; but his body was not himself: neither was the confession 
of Peter, Christ himself; nor Peter's person, the rock of ages. Surely 
the papal rock is not as our rock ; our enemies themselves being judges. 

But petros and petra sound alike, and therefore, though of different 
gender, case, and person, they must be identical ! Of the person and 
case we have said enough, (for my friend has not attempted to refute 
it.) Of the difference in gender, he will tell us, that it was written in 
Syriac, and that the word signifying stone in that language is of no 
gender. This is gratuitous. He can produce no copy of Matthew in 
Syriac; the only authentic copy we have is that before me. It is the 
Greek version of Matthew : " Thou" is in the second person, and "this" 
is in the third. Petros is masculine and Petra is feminine. It is impos- 
sible for language to do more to prevent mistake; and he that would 
attempt to explain away these three — gender, person and case, is not 
subject to the laws of language, neither indeed can be. 

It is commonly observed that Peter seems not to have been any bet- 
ter qualified after than before the confession, to be the foundation of the 
church : for he is reproved for his worldly notions of the Messiah and 
his kingdom, in these words ; " Get thee behind me, adversary, for thou 
relishest not the things of God ; but the things of man." The word sa- 
tanas signifies adversary. Jesus calls him not ho satanas, Satan ; but 
simply opponent. Stand aside thou who opposest me in this matter : 
Thou dost not understand these divine things. 

There is another of the bishop's texts to which, out of courtesy, I 
must allude : " Peter, when thou art converted, confirm your breth- 
ren." The meaning of which is, — Peter, as you have experienced the 



98 DEBATE 02i THE 

bitterness of repentance, you can hereafter comfort and strengthen your 
penitent brethren. My learned opponent interprets it thus ; Peter, 
when you are converted, you shall be my vicar and prince of the apostles ! 

John xxi, "Lovest thou me more than these" is again before us. The 
bishop will have these to refer to the apostles. My audience will re- 
member that when I read the Greek of the passage, he quoted Latin 
(jp'us quam hoi,) as if to correct the Greek by deciding that these was 
maszuline and not neuter, the very point in debate — that when he was 
challenged to sustain his Latin comment by the original, he immedi- 
ately after taking up the Greek Testament laid it down. 

It will elucidate this passage to read the whole in the original, verse 
13th. 

In reference to which Jesus says, 2;/uw lav/*, a.y-j.7r;i; jus ttkhov rcvrw> 
The grammatical antecedent to tcwm must be rev u§tcv and to 
c^^scvy which makes it neuter. Now, I ask, on what grammatical 
authority does the Vulgate convert these into the masculine'? 
Ought a translator to judge for his readers, or ought he to give 
the same latitude of inquiry to his readers which the original gives to 
him. The latter, certainly. So decides the highest tribunal in the 
commonwealth of letters. And neither my opponent nor his Latin 
nor Greek supplements, nor interpolations, have any right to make that 
masculine, which the original makes at least doubtful, himself being 
judge : and according to my judgment, on the laws of language, cer- 
tainly, neuter. 

On what precarious, inferential and illogical grounds rest the pro' d 
aspirations of the pope of Rome ! He out-rivals the proudest mon- 
archs of the east. He that styles himself " brother to the sun and 
moon, 4 " and " disposer of Asiatic crowns," is modest compared with 
the vicar, who claims dominion over angels and saints in heaven — 
ovpr all the spirits in the wide domains of purgatory ; who styles him- 
self, or permits others to address him as a God on earth — as " his holi- 
ness, Lord God the Pope," as holding the keys of heaven and hell, and 
the two swords of ecclesiastic and political justice ;. and all this mighty 
empire resting upon the words, "petra," ''''strengthen thy brethren ," 
" lovest thou me more than these" '•''feed my sheep and Jambs" &c. 
Was there ever so proud a superstructure reared upon so many and 
so baseless assumptions "?! 

The gentleman quoted yet another verse from the Vulgate ; 1 Pet. 
v. 3, " Be not lords over the clergy " Hence he infers, the apostle Pe- 
ter had the clergy under him. But the apostle says, " not as lords 
over the clergy," there then, was a plurality of lords, — not one su- 
preme head ! Although this passage was quoted at an early period 
of the discussion, by my opponent, I reserved my remarks upon it till 
now. It reads in the original and the common version, " not as lords 
over the heritage, lot, or people of the Lord." ka^cc, the word here 
translated clergy, occurs twelve times in the New Testament, and in 
nine of these it is translated lot. In Acts, xxvi. 18, and in Col. i. 12, 
it is translated inheritance, and in the passage before us, it may be 
either lot, heritage, or inheritance .• but clergy is most whimsical and 
arbitrary. As well might the Vulgate have said to Simon Magus, 
u thou hast neither part nor clergy in this matter:" or, in Col. i. 12, 
" he has fitted us to partake in the clergy of the saints." In both 



B0MAN CATHOLIC KELIGION. b7 

cases the word is the same in the original. These shew by what 
a stretch of power and arbitrary dominion over words, these critics 
would bring the clergy or christian ministry under the bishop of Rome. 
So fades from the face of reason the whole evidence from the Bible, in 
favor of the grand office without which the papacy is as mere a fig- 
ment of fancy as the visions of the prophet of Islamism ! 

Having found the office of vicar, or general superintendant of the 
whole church, the universal episcopate of Rome, without express or 
positive precept or institution, and without even inferential probability; 
I proceed in the third place to show 7 still farther, that it is anii-scrip- 
ixiraU not only in theory, but in the facts recorded. 

I have said that the first church was the Hebrew. It w T as catholic 
and apostolic : for all the. twelve apostles were in it. This cannot 
be said of any other society that ever existed. The whole college cf 
the twelve apostles had their seat in Jerusalem. The Samaritan 
daughter of Jerusalem was the first fruits out of Judea. i J hilip. one of 
the apostles' evangelists, carried the word of the Lord to Samaria. 
They had believed, repentpd, and been baptized. News is brought to Je- 
rusalem. The cardinals all meet. — The twelve apostles are in session. 
But where is Peter's chair ? The prince of the apostles, the vicar cf 
Christ, had not yet learned his duty, and his brethren had not yet 
learned to call him pope. The fact is, they made a legate of him. 
They sent two legates to Jerusalem. And who do you think were the 
two first apostolic legates ? They, indeed sent pope Peter and his broth- 
er John !! Thus it is clear that the notion of Peter's universal episco- 
pacy, and princeship of the apostles was not yet conceived. This fact 
speaks a volume against the pretended successors of Peter. 

But — again, and still more humiliating to his successors, when Peter 
had introduced the Gentiles into the church, the brethren of the circum- 
cision rose up en masse against him, net regarding him as having the 
least, supreme authority in the case. " How," do you ask, "did Peter 
receive the complaints from all quarters for his daring to innovate, by 
mere authority on all the holy brethren ? Did he say, lam Christ's 
vicar — chief of the apostles. — the supreme head of the church — I hold 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and do you demand of me, why / 
should act thus" ?! Never thus, spoke Peter. He did not assume any 
thing : but tells the matter over, and shows how God had opened the 
door of faith to the Gentiles ; " and what was I," he reasons. " that I 
should withstand God ?" Ought I to have stood up and said to the 
Gentiles, yuii shall not enter the kingdom of the Messiah, nor be en- 
rolled amongst the children of God? — In the 11th chapter of the Acts 
of the apostles, we have a full exposition of the groundless pietension 
of his successors, in the details of this case from the lips of the apos- 
tle himself. A third instance of the entire absence of all such vicars 
in the primitive church, appears in the " council held at Jerusalem." 
So the bishop's party designate it, and for the sake of argument, let it 
be a council. 

It was not called by Peter the pope, nor was it a council cf the 
whole world ; but of tw T o or three churches. Well, they met. Who 
was president? Neither the pope nor his legates. Peter is not in the 
chair; but on the floor. He spoke first, as he was always accustomed 
to do: but did he dictate the course to be pursued? No. Had he the 
honor of drafting or submitting the decrees ? He had not. He arose 
I 13 



98 DEBATE ON THE 

and spoke to the assembly, and told what God had done by him among 
the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas, also on the floor, then stated what 
the Lord had done by them among the Gentiles, and when they had 
done, James arose to present his views. "My sentence ts" says he, 
" that we ought to write so and so to the Gentiles." In his views they 
all acquiesced. They do not say in this letter, " it seemed good to 
Peter!" No, "it seemed good to ws." Indeed, if any was pope in 
this assembly, it was James : not Peter. All the popes of Rome as 
successors of Peter, are therefore not only unscriptural ; but anti-scrip- 
tural. 

Again, and stronger still. In Gal. 1st chap, we are told of a cer- 
tain controversy between Paul and Peter, — not about faith, nor moral- 
ity; but about expediency. Paul never w,ould have related this mat- 
ter : but in self-defence. There were some in Galatia that regarded 
him as a sub-apostle, not equal to those who had been companions of 
the Lord during his public ministry. In self-defence, he affirms that, 
in conversations with the pillars, as some called Peter and James and 
John — three of the oldest apostles — he did not receive a new idea. So 
far from being dependant on Peter, or inferior to him, he was the only 
apostle in those days with whom Paul had the slightest dissension : 
44 for," says he, "after Peter came down to Antioch I withstood him to 
the face, for he was to be blamed: for before certain persons came from 
James, he did eat with the Gentiles ; but when they were come, he 
withdrew and separated from them, fearing the Jews. And the other 
Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas was car- 
ried away with their dissimulation. Seeing that they walked not up- 
rightly, I said to Peter in the presence of them all ; " Why do you com- 
pel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews'?" Thus Paul reproved the 
head of the church, his father, pope Peter, in the presence of all the 
brethren for a sort of temporizing expediency in its practical details, 
squinting at dissimulation. All these facts show how contrary to the 
doctrine and facts of the sacred writings are the assumptions of 
popery. 

A word or two from the last will and testament of the apostle Peter. 
Being far advanced in years he writes two letters containing his last 
advice to the brethren. In the first he associates himself with the el- 
ders of the Jewish church, and claims no other eminence than that of 
fellow elder, and as such exhorts them to feed the flock of God wil- 
lingly. In the second letter, he wills, that the brethren addressed, 
"should, after his decease, be mindful of the commandment of us, the 
apostles of the Lord and Savior." Thus, with his last words, he dis- 
claims every attribute of official supremacy. He is known only in the 
New Testament, as an apostle, either from his own words simply, or 
those of Paul, or from any other circumstance, which in the history of 
the church is recorded from Pentecost to the end of the New Testa- 
ment. I shall leave other scriptures for the calls of my opponent, and 
the occasion. 

I now proceed to show that as there is no' foundation in scripture, 
so there is none in fact, nor in reason, for the papal supremacy. I 
have shown, that it wants positive proof — that it is built on inference — 
that this inference is not found in the premises — and that other scrip- 
tural facts and documents preclude the possibility of such an inference. 

We have emphatically stated, that the first point is to establish the 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 99 

office. If there is no office, there can be no officer. But my friend the 
bishop's system is still more at fault, for if he could prove (what he 
never will) that there was such an office ; still he has to prove that 
Peter was the first officer. — That Peter was that officer is as cardinal 
a point to his system, as that the papal office had been set up by Jesus 
Christ. The Scriptures are perfectly mute on that point ! What says 
church history 1 It is only inferred that Peter ever was in Rome! It 
is only probable. Barronius only says it is probable he had a see 
there : he does not moot that question. There is not a single word in 
all antiquity which positively asserts that Peter was ever bishop of Home, 
or was ever in Home, The gentleman quoted Irenaeus. Can he quote 
the original 1 I affirm that it does not exist : and even the copy from 
which he read was not found for centuries after Irenaeus wrote. But 
admit it to be genuine. I affirm that Irenaeus no where asserts, that Pe- 
ter was bishop of Rome. If neither he nor his contemporaries assert it, 
what is the authority of Grotius, or Casaubon, or Usher or such mod- 
ern authors 1 ! It proves nothing. The assertion of my present opponent 
is worth as much as that of any man who has lived for a thousand years, 
to prove an event which happened a thousand years before he was 
born. 

The bishop and his friend the editor of the Catholic paper and at 
least fifteen hundred citizens heard me lecture when last in the city ; 
and yet, so faithless is tradition, that I have seen it stated in a print 
of this city — in a Roman Catholic Telegraph, too, that I had asserted 
as a proposition to be proved, " that Charles Carroll, of Carrollton was 
not a Roman Catholic /" — words that never fell from my lips or pen. 
If then tradition cannot be kept here for a single week, in this day of 
light and knowledge, and good faith, how can you respect and believe 
traditions descending through ages of darkness and superstition ] — 
why bring up men from the remote corners of the earth, who lived 
more than a century after the time in question, to tell us their hearsays 
or the rumors of past ages.. 

I have affirmed, that there is no document to prove that Peter was 
ever bishop of Rome. My friend disputes this point; we are then at 
issue, and this is a vital point. Let him then meet me upon it, and 
decide the controversy. Irenaeus says not, that either Peter or Paul 
was bishop of Rome ; but, " over that church that was planted by Peter 
and Paul sat Linus." True, the inference is, that Peter and Paul must 
have been at Rome ; if not, how T believe that the church was planted 
by them'? But the church at Rome never was planted by them. The 
faith of the Romans was known through all the earth when Paul wrote 
his letter to them, and at that time he had never been in that city. The 
proposition is therefore not true ; and Irenaeus, if he wrote so, wrote 
on erroneous tradition, and is not worthy of credit. Admit, for argu- 
ment sake, that we take the testimony of the fathers on the succession, 
which are we to believe 1 They tell us stories irreconcilably dif- 
ferent. The gentleman triumphantly held up a map, as if there were 
some hidden virtue in it, and said he could speak upon it till dooms- 
day, I have also a map here, which will prove that his map can 
prove nothing without a tongue in it ; and if holding up this map be- 
fore you could convince you, I should soon carry the point. Bellar- 
mine admits, that the fathers contradict each other on the succession of 
the first popes. A phalanx of authors can be adduced to prove that the 



100 DEBATE ON THE 

fathers are not unanimous upon any one point of importance, on that 
or any other dogma of the papacy. 

Divine authority cannot exist, hut in the holy oracles : against any 
other pretended infallible standard, all men should protest. The 
fathers agreed in hearing testimony to the scriptures, as far as they 
individually knew them; but thiir unanimous consent on any thing 
else has not yet been found. 

J :stin Martyr, for example, proves my interpretation of the 16th 
ch. Matthew, on the rock. He is one of the primitive fathers. He 
gives substantially the same, views of that whole passage as I 
have adduced here. Now it is impossible for my opponent to find a 
unanimous consent of the fathers with him, as I have Justin Martyr, 
of the second century, and many others, with me. My standing argu- 
ment, on the consent of the fathers, is this : 

I find many rf the fathers un equivocally agreeing with we. These, 
ihsr fjre, must express the unanimous consent, if there be any ; for it car.' 
not he unanimous without them. Now, if there be no uvanimous consent, 
th? Romanists bui'd upon a fihe foundation ; and if ihzre be, they build 
en a false foundation, ,• f >r we have that consent, not 1k.ey. 

But this unanimous consent fails in the succession. Admitting" that 
Peter was first bishop of Rome, no living man can tell whether Linus 
or Clement was the second bishop of Rome. The ancients do not 
asrree upon that point. Tertullian makes Clement second bishop, and 
others make Linus. I have a chart, in Eusebius, which differs from 
his own history in various points. I have other charts and indexes 
that place the bishops of Rome in a different order. Eusebius does 
not place Peter first ; nor do any of the fathers. He places Linus first, 
then Clitus, then Clement. Another tells us, that. Peter was first, then 
Linus, then Clement. A fourth, perhaps, on the authority of the last, 
places Peter first and Clement second. — [Time expired.] 

Ilaf past 10 o'clock, J, M. 

It is well, beloved fiiends, to keep our eyes upon the polar star, 
when once we have embarked upon the sea cf controversy. The 
pMar star of this question, is the attempted disproof, by my learnei 
friend, of the Roman Catholic claim, to be the holy, apostolic, catholic 
church. He was pledged to show her to be an apostacy from the omy 
true church. Has he proved this] Is there one intelligent man ii 
this assembly prepared to answer this question in the affirmative! 
I asked, from what ehurch was she an apostacy 1 He told us that she 
had apostatized in the year 1054. But he has net yet told us what 
or where was the one true holy and apostolic church from which she 
seceded. There was a Qfood reason for it: no other catholic church 
existed at the epoch i dicated, hut ours, the Roman Catholic. We 
were th°n taken to the year £50, cr seme time thereabout. These 
were -indefinite words ; and I ask again what and where was the true 
church from which she aoostatized in 250 1 Has he informed ycu 1 
we were referred to the Novations — and a Protestant church historian 
Mcsheim, tells us — 

[Mr. Campbell here calle 1 Bishop Purcell to order as not speaking 
to the point; the moderators decided that he was in crde r and he pro- 
ceeded.] The gentleman cannct confuse me by these interruptions. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 101 

My eye is on the star. I say, that Mosheim, a Protestant ecclesiasti- 
cal historian tells us that the Novatians embraced essential errors. 1 
have quoted from that historian, for this sect and all other prominent 
sects, to the beginning of the 16th century. They taught some doc- 
trines which Catholics, and some, which Protestants hold. They 
taught some errors which Catholics and Protestants agree to reject — 
they taught disorganizing doctrines, which armed the civil power 
b*th Catholic and Protestant against them — and these doctrines, Ca- 
thor.cs and Protestants mutually abhor. They were not then united, 
pure, cr apostolic. They were not the church of Christ. The ques- 
tion the*, reverts upon us — which was the church of Christ, from 
which the "Soman Catholic church separated in the 3d century 1 

I now cornt at once to the last speech of the gentleman. — I have 
already agreed that this controversy is resolvible into two or three 
grand principles — and by the discussion of these we may succeed 
in ascertaining their ulterior consequences. If true that Christ has 
established a head of the Church on earth, it follows that we must 
recognize that head. So far we are right. If Peter was made that 
head, we are right. If Peter was to have successors, we are right. 
If that succession was to last to the end of time, we are right, for 
we hold these propositions to be irrefragable. If on the contrary, 
these propositions could be satisfactorily proved to be untrue, the 
Catholics would be wrong. 

I have proved the first of these, viz. that Peter was made the head 
of the church, by Christ, from scripture. And what has my friend 
discovered to weaken the force of the numerous and strong texts I 
have adduced, — the rock, the keys, the feeding of the lambs, and of 
the sheep whom the lambs are wont to follow, the prayer of Christ 
that Peter's faith should never fail, the charge given him by Christ 
to confirm his brethren, his confession of the divinity of Christ be- 
fore the other apostles, and the Blessedness pronounced on him for 
that confession by Christ, the deference shewn him — the poor illiterate 
fisherman, by Paul, imbued with the sublimest lessons of the Law at 
the feet of Gamaliel, &c. &c? Why he says : " Peter, lovest thou me 
more than these fish !" 

My friends, I know not how to treat this interpretation seriously. 
But since the gentleman is so curious an interpreter, let us see if the 
text will bear him out. After the miracle of the draught of fishes, 
the apostles, at Christ's invitation, proceeded to some distance from 
their nets and barks, for the purpose of dining. It is natural to sup- 
pose they selected, for dinner, no more of the fish they had taken, 
than they would probably eat. Can my friend say that after they had 
dined there were any of the cooked fish remaining ! There might have 
been some bones left on the table ; but would Christ point to these 
fish bones, and say, Peter, lovest thou more than these ? What a ques- 
tion for Christ to ask his leading disciple ! Surely such an inter- 
pretation is absurd. But what is the voice of antiquity ] My friend 
says that Justin bears him out in his interpretation. Will my friend 
point out the passage in that father's works ] Will he say that it is the 
principal sense, the sense that father approves 1 I pledge myself he will 
not pretend to do so while refutation is near. Now if scripture is so 
very clear, and this meaning as obvious as Mr. C. supposes, is it 
not strange that this light should beam upon us to day for the first 
i 2 



102 DEBATE ON THE 

time 1 The gentleman charges me with having dared to change the 
gender of the word signifying these, from neuter to masculine. Dees 
he not know that the word vcvrw is both masculine and neuter] It is 
generally applied to persons, though I do not deny that it may be ap- 
plied to things. The Greek therefore leaves us as much in the dark 
as ever. 

We find a parallel passng? in the new Testament. " He that lovet^ 
father and mother more than me is not worthy of me." Matth. x. r ' 7 « 
Here the words are ime s/xe (more than me). e t us is in the accu^ l j ve 
case — rovrm is in the genitive case. But, my friends, this has nothing 
to do with the question at issue; it does not make fcr or against my 
argument, whether we adopt the natural, or the gross interpretation. 
Christ said to Peter, " lovest thou me." He demands an assurance of 
his faithful attachment. Peter three times replies i« the affirmative, 
and thrice the command is repeated to him, u feed my lambs," " feed 
my sheep." The argument is entirely independent cf either con- 
struction referred to. Hence I maintain that Peter was established, 
head of the church by Jesus Christ. The "rock," the " keys," the 
prayer, the prophecy of the place and manner of Peter's death, which 
we read in the same chapter, all prove it. 

The gentleman says that a doctrine should be so clear, that it could 
not possibly be contested. This is really too soft for a man cf Mr. 
C.'s strong mind. What is there so clear that it could not possibly be 
contested. Does not the universe tell as clearly as Genesis, that God 
created the heavens and the earth, and is not that contested ] What 
doctrine more clearly revealed in the bible, or more important than 
the divinity of Christ'? and is not that contested] and by one cf the 
most learned societies of christians in the United States, I mean the 
Unitarians. They read the bible and they think it impiety and bias-, 
phemy to call Jesus Christ God ! 

It was essential in the Jewish institution that there should be a high 
priest. If the old institution was a type of the new, where is the 
anti-type] And if the headship of the higrh priest of the Jews dero- 
gated not from the authority of God the Father, who was pleased to 
be their special ruler, neither does the headship cf the pope derogate 
from the supreme authority of God the Son, Jesus Christ, who acnuir- 
ed the church by his blood and established Peter its visible head on 
earth, to exercise the office during his natural life, and by his succes- 
sors for ever. 

My friend flies from scripture to tradition, and from a father of the 
early age to a modern historian. I will pledge myself to this en- 
lightened assembly that the supremacy of Peter and of Peter's suc- 
cessors in the Roman see can be abundantly attested by an appeal to 
tradition : and I may here observe that Baronius has been misrepre- 
sented. He does not say it is not improbable that Peter fixed his see at 
Rome — of this he knew there was no doubt ; but that it was not im- 
probable he fixed his see there by the express command of Christ, 
which is, the intelligent hearer will perceive, quite a different propo- 
sition. Peter acted as the other apostles did, under the guidance of in- 
spiration, in the choice of the scene of his pastoral toils; but Baronius 
thinks it not improbable that Christ expressly commanded him to se- 
lect Rome for his — There he could "teach all nations." Mr. C. 
asserts that for a thousand years there is not a voice heard to attest 



EOUIAN CATHOLIC R&LIGIOX 103 

this fact. My friends, net one vcice, but five hundred attest it. There 
is one loud chorus <~-f testimony among the fathers and historians, 
giving" almost universal consent to the doctrine: £ome obscure indi- 
viduals may have doubted, or denied it ill late years. They are but 
motes on the surfice of the overwhelming stream of testimony. Again 
n:y friend went back to the bible. He read of the high priest — but he 
cannot open the bible without seeing his own refutation written there — ■ 
a^ost the first words that struck my ears were, the dresses and anoint- 
ing of the priests. Where are such things done among Protestants'? 
Do they not make void the scriptures ] Anointing the clergy and the* 
sick, — commanded by the bible — rejected by Protestants — superseded 
by the fashions of the day ! Again : Aaron was separated that he should 
b ess and sanctify — and yet if the pope bless or sanctify, he is anini- 
pious assumer of what belongs to God alone!! 

The case of Korah, Dathan and Abiram was mentioned. God re- 
al'y appears to me to extort from the adversaries of his church the 
most striking proof of her authoiity, vindicated in the Type, from 
the saciilegious contradictions of the schismatics of the old law. 
The ground opened and swallowed them up ! So have all the sects, 
that in the early ages opposed the church, perished. The grave has 
hidden their guilt from the earth, too happy if they bear not its pen- 
alty in the world that expands beyond the graze ! Again 250 priests 
perished for opposing the ordinance of God! the ecclesiastical guide 
he had appointed ! 

My friend asks, if the headship of Peter and his successors were 
as certainly divine as the high priesthood of the old law, would it not 
have been established by proof as plain] Why, he emphatically de- 
manded, cannot the Roman pontiff, like Aaron, shew his authori f y by 
an equaUy convincing miracle? My friends, I take the gentleman at 
his word. He that has eyes to see let him see. Has not God wrought 
a similar miracle — I will fearlessly say — a far mrre splendid miracle, 
t? attest the preeminence of the see of Peter 1 Has not the night of 
Mahcmmedanism and inf delity thrown its sable pall over the once 
flourishing churches of Africa and Asia? Has not the bright light of 
the prcspel become extinct in the most celebrated of the sees founded 
by the other apostles— Crete, Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, Alexandria, 
Philippi, Jerusalem 1 Where is the hymn of praise to Christ inton- 
ed, the vcice of pure confession heard, the tabernacle of the tes- 
timony seen in any of these famous churches, where St. Paul had 
formed such a multitude of adorers in spirit and in truth ? which he 
visited with so much solicitude, prayed for with so much fervor, and 
loved with so much tenderness. Returning to visit these churches, 
not en the following day as Moses did the rods of the twelve tribes, 
but after eighteen hundred years, we see that the rod of Aaron, the 
church formed by the high priest appointed by Jesus Christ in the 
New Law, has budded and blossomed, and produced fruit of which 
all the nations have participated, while the churches formed by the 
other apostles have been stricken with a melancholy sterility, and 
have utterly withered ! The murmuring of the children of Israel 
against Moses and Aaron ceased when they beheld the prodigy rela- 
ted in the book of Numbers ; is it too much to expect that we will be 
less insensible to an equally authentic declaration in favor of the 
church and pontiff, the special objects of the divine protection and 
care 7 



104 DEBATE ON THE 

When Pius, VI. died at Valence, in France, it was said that quick 
lime was thrown on his corpse, that no vestige of it might remain, and 
infidelity boasted that Christianity was buried in the same grave with 
its pontiff. But a successor was soon beheld to ascend into the chair 
of Peter — alas ! he too, is doomed to suffer contumely for the name of 
Jesus. He is seized with violence, by a ruthless soldiery, and car- 
ried off from Rome, an exile and a prisoner, to Fontainebleau. The 
doom of his persecutor is written : he is precipitated from the giddy 
heights of his ambition, and the meek, but invincible heir of Peter's 
sacred power, contrary to all human foresight, is reinstated by a Pro- 
testant government, by 30,000 Protestant bayonets, in the peaceful ex- 
ercise of his duties, as the chief pastor of the Catholic world. Eng- 
land, with all thy faults I love thee still. You are Protestants, but 
you can be just. Rome, changeless amid change, Rome, free among 
the dead, unaffected by earthly revolutions, by earthly conquests un- 
subdued, why have the nations raged, and the people devised vain 
things against thee 1 The Lord is thy protector still. He hath won- 
derfully 'sustained thee, amidst all the vicissitudes of human institu- 
tions. " He that dwelleth in heaven," to use the language of the 
Psalmist, " hath laughed at them that stood up against thee, and the 
Lord shall deride them." My friend would call it " morbid" in England, 
to sympathise with the Catholics, as he has called your generous sym- 
pathies for your persecuted fellow-citizens ; but it is not morbid, it is 
magnanimous, it is just to confess an error, to abjure an unfounded 
prejudice, and to side with the wrongfully oppressed. 

I quoted scripture to prove that Christ was the corner stone, on 
which the whole building securely rests — and that Peter is the rock of 
the foundation, deriving whatever strength it has thus exhibited from 
Christ. There is no contradiction in this. I am compelled to follow the 
zigzag course of my friend. The reader of the printed controversy will 
be at no loss to bring together the diverging rays of evidence and to find 
my answers to objections, where they may be, apparently out of place. 

There is no distinction of persons in Syriac. In Greek it is once 
wrpoc, and again 7r»Tf>ct — but this change of gender is merely to 
avoid a repetition of the same word in the same sentence. This is 
reason sufficient, to account for the difference. I give my friend thanks 
for proving that Peter was not Satan. It is the correct reading, and 
therefore, I agree with his interpretation of the text; when Christ says 
to Peter, "get thee behind me Satan," that is you, who differ from 
me on this particular subject. This text has been much abused. 

Again : Peter did think, that he loved Jesus more than the rest, and 
Christ knew that he did. Do you remember, my friends, the scene 
which took place shortly before the Savior suffered 1 When he told his 
apostles, with a holy melancholy on his sacred heart, that one of them 
would betray him — that the shepherd should be stricken, and the sheep 
dispersed 1 Ah ! is there not something in the noble hearted enthusi- 
asm of Peter, which is at once the cause of his offence and its pallia- 
tion 1 "Although all shall be scandalized in thee, yet not I." This 
proves an impulsiveness, an ardor, and a strength of attachment to the 
person of Christ, which Peter, too confidently it may be, but yet sin- 
cerely, believed to be greater than the other disciples felt for their di- 
vine master. 

Jesus knew this, but he warns him not to be presumptuous. " Amen, 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 1C5 

I say to thee, to-day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, 
thou shaltdeny me thrice," Mark xiv. 30. From this, and other texts, 
Peter's ardor, and the Savior's knowledge of his confidence in his own 
steadfastness are perfectly plain. Why, then, deny them both 1 

1 quoted the vulgate, not through ignorance of Greek, on which I 
have shewn as much knowledge as my friend ; but not to boast of a 
little learning on the words, TIku:v rcvlw. The Greek, the Latin, and the 
English, as verbal criticism is necessary to elucidate the meaning cf 
the text, are by a singular coincidence, in this case, equally ambigu- 
ous. How can an unlettered Protestant understand the text] 

The popes do not claim to be lords, spiritual, and temporal. But 
very few of them exercised any temporal power beyond the limits cf 
their own principality, where they rule, as Gibbon told you, by the 
veice of a free people whom they hive r^deem^d from slavery. Tiieir 
throne is established in the affVctions of their people, who, with rea- 
son, prefer their pontiff's mild sway to kingly usurpation — the- crosier, 
to the sceptre. The popes have never taken the title of kings of Rome. 

J can shew from Waddington and Scuthey, both Protectant histori- 
ans of the church, that throrgh centuries of darkness and doubt and 
civil commotion, while the Turk was ravaoriuar the southern regions of 
Kurope and the northern hordes were pouring down in swarms from 
their ice-bound regions, desolating the blooming fields, and destroying 
all that was useful and beautiful of the works of civilization, the pope 
was the only savior of Europe, from their barbarian ravayes. He 
gave to science and to letters the only refuse which could then have 
availed them — the refuge of an altar — and the now calumniited monks 
who reproduced in more auspicious times, the intellectual ray. They 
handed us the works of the sages, and heroes, the poets, historians 
and orators of Greece and Rome across the isthmus of the " dark ages" 
so called. They preserved for us a better gift — the Bible. 

Benefi s conferred by the church. — " Yet shoul 1 we be very unjust to the Roman 
Cataoli:: C; ure -\ if we shoul J allow it t> be snpposed r that she opened no recep- 
tacles, for the nurture of" true excellence; that in her general iust.tutions, espe- 
cially in her earlier age, she has overlooked the mor \ necessities of man — the 
truth is far otherwise. We have repeatedly observed, how commonly, in seasons 
of barbarism, religion was employed in supplying the defects of civil government 
and diffusing consolation and security. The Truce of God mitigated the fury 
of private warfare, by limiting the hours of vengeance, an 1 interposing a space 
for toe operation o^justice and human tv. The name of the church was associated 
with peace; ami it was a prouder position, than when she trampled on the necks 
of kings, (what she never did by the bye as I shall prove.) The emancipation of 
the Serfs was another cause, equally sacred, in which her exertions were re- 
peatedly emoloyed. In her interference in the concerns of monarchs and nations, 
she frequently appeared as the advocite of the weak, and the adversary of arbi- 
trary power. Even the much abused law of Asylum served through a long- pe- 
no'', as a check on baronial oppression, rather {han an encouragement to crime. 

The duty of charity', during- the better Rges of the church, was by no means 
neglected bv the secular clergy, while it was the practice an t office of the mo- 
nastic establishments. And even the discipline, so strictly inculcated by ihe 
earlier prelates, however arbitrary in its exercise, and pernicious in its abuse, 
was not unprofitable in arresting the first steps, and restraining the earliest dis- 
positions to sin. Confession and penance, and the awful censures of the church, 
when dispensed with discretion, must have b<=en potent instruments for the im- 
provement of uncivilized society." Waddington's Church Hist, page 546, New 
York edit. 1885. 

We now come to the word Kx-^oc (cleros,) which the gentleman 
says means lot and not clergy. Lot does mean the whole people of 

14 



106 DEBATE ON THE 

God — clergy and laity. Now if the apostle could not lord it over the 
whole people, he could notlord it over the clergy. The pope does not lord 
it over the consciences of either clergy or laity — he believes as they do. 

The apostles sent Peter and John to Samaria. Peter and John 
probably offered themselves for the early mission — Peter, to whom 
God had given superior power — and John, who had leaned on the bo- 
som of Jesus at supper — both pre-eminent apostles, to confirm the peo- 
ple of Samaria. 

No man can read the New Testament attentively without seeing, at 
almost every page, the evidence of Peter's divinely appointed and ac- 
knowledged primacy ; or the history of the church, without every 
where discovering the primacy of his successors. Not one council 
has been received that the pope did not approve. His approbation is 
in the last resort, the only certain test of a council's orthodoxy. 

Peter spoke first in the council at Jerusalem. Peter was justly re- 
primanded by Paul. The very fact of Paul mentioning his boldness 
on this occasion, confirms the fact of Peter's supremacy. So did Ire- 
nasus remonstrate with pope Victor in the controversy of the Quarto- 
decimans — about the time of observing the Easter — and the pope's 
sentiments prevailed — although Irenaeus' dissuasive did good. So did 
the controversy about re-baptization terminate between St. Cyprian 
and the popes Cornelius and Stephen. The popes' decision was every 
where received. 

Now Paul himself did the same for which he blamed Peter. He 
knew and prized the freedom with which Christ had made him free, 
yet he says, " If meat scandalize my brother, I will not eat it forever." 

He vainly persists in saying there is no good ground for asserting that 
Peter was ever in Rome, after all the proof I have adduced. Here is 
Robinson's Calmet, a Protestant dictionary of the Bible, a standard work 
in Protestant libraries. Calmet was a Roman Catholic. He was a prodigy 
of learning and ancient literature — and Robinson, a Protestant divine, 
thought he could not furnish a better gift to the public than this book. 

" If the reader wishes to see the evidence from antiquity, on which Peter's 
having been at Rome rests, he will find it fully set forth by Lardner, who con- 
cludes his inquiry as follows : This is the general, uncontradicted, disinterest- 
ed testimony of ancient writers in the several parts of the world, Greeks, Lat- 
ins, Syrians. As our Lord's prediction concerning the death of Peter, is record- 
ed in one of the four Gospels, it is very likely that christians would observe the 
accomplishment of it, which must have been in some place. And about this 
place, there is no difference among christian writers of ancient times. Never 
any other place was named besides Rome; nor did any other city, ever glory in 
the martyrdom of Peter. It is not for our honor, nor for our interests, either 
as christians or Protestants, to deny the truth of events ascertained by early and 
well attested tradition. If any make an ill use (as he calls it) of such facts, we 
are not accountable for it. We are not, from a dread of such abuses, to over- 
throw the credit of all history, the consequence of which would be fatal/' Rob- 
inson's Calmet, p. 741. 

The gentleman has said that not one voice has attested the fact of 
the succession of the Roman see for a thousand years. I have quoted 
Eusebius, a Greek father of the fourth century, translated by a Pro- 
testant minister, a splendid work. Here is a list of 29 bishops who 
sat in the chair of St. Peter, all of whom he names in the body of the 
work; also the succession in the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, 
Rome, Laodicea, &c. 

Or St. Peter. 

(Simon Magus) " entering the city of Rome, by the co-operation of that ma- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 107 

lignant spirit which had fixed its seat there, his attempts were soon so far suc- 
cessful, as to be honored as a god, with the erection of a statue by the inhabitants 
of that city. This, however, did not continue long; for immediately under the 
reign of Claudius, by the benign and gracious providence of God, Peter, that 
powerful and great apostle, who, by his courage took the lead of all the rest, was 
conducted to Rome against this pest of mankind. He, like a noble commander 
of God, fortified with divine armor, bore the precious merchandise of the re- 
vealed light from the East to those in the West, announcing the light itself, 
and salutary docrine of the soul, the proclamation of the kingdom of God." — 
Book II. chap. 14, page 64. 

Of Linus. 

" After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first that received the 
episcopate at Rome." — Book III. chap. 2, page 82. 

Anaclettjs. 

"After Vespasian had reigned about ten years, he was succeeded by his son 
Titus; in the second year of whose reign, Linus, bishop of the church of Rome, 
who had held the office about twelve years, transferred it to Anacletus." — Chap. 
13, page 100. 

Clement. 

" In the twelfth year of the same reign, (Domitian's,) after Anacletus had 
been bishop of Rome twelve years, he was succeeded by Clement."— Chap. 15, 
page 100. 

EUARESTUS. 

" In the third year of the above mentioned reign (Trajan's,) Clement, bishop 
of Rome, committed the episcopal charge to Euarestus." — Chap. 34, page 120. 

Alexander. 

"About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan, after Euarestus had 

completed the eighth year as bishop of Rome, he was succeeded in the episcopal 
office by Alexander."— Book IV. chap. 1, page 128. 

Xystus. 

11 But in the year of the same (Adrian's) reign, Alexander, bishop of Rome, 
died, having completed the tenth year of his ministrations. Xystus was his suc- 
cessor." — Chap. 4, page 130. 

TELESPHORUS AND HYGINUS. 

" In the first year of this (Antonine's) reign, and in the eleventh year of his 
episcopate, Telesphorus departed this life, and was succeeded in the charge of 
tne Roman church by Hyginus." — Chap. 10, page 137. 

Pius. 
" But Hyginus dying after the fourth year of his office, Pius received the 
episcopate." — Chap. 11, page 138. 

Anicetus. 
"And Pius dyin<*- at Rome in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, the church 
there was governed by Anicetus." — Ibid, page 138. 

Soter. 
" It was in the eighth year of the above mentioned reign, viz. that of Verus, 
that Anicetus, who held the episcopate of Rome for eleven years, was succeeded 
by Soter."— Chap. 19, page 156. 

Eleutherus. 
" Soter, bishop of Rome, died after having held the episcopate eight years. He- 
was succeeded by Eleutherus, the twelfth in order from the apostles." — Book V. 
Prelim, page 168. 

Victor. 
" In the tenth year of the reign of Commodus, Eleutherus, who had held the 
episcopate for thirteen years, was succeeded by Victor." — Chap. 22, page 206. 

Zephyrintjs. 
" But after this author (Victor,) had superintended the church, Zephyrinus was 
appointed his successor about the ninth year of the reign of Severus." — Chap. 
28, page 214. 

Callisthus and Urbanus. 
*' In the first year of the latter (Antonine's reign,) Zephyrinus the bishop of 
Rome, departed this life, after having charge of the church eighteen years. He 
was succeeded in the episcopate by Callisthus, who survived him five years, and 
left the church to Urbanus.— Chap. 21, page 242. 



108 DEBATE ON THE 

PCNTJANUS. 

" Whilst this was the state of things, Urban, who had been bishop of Rome 
eightyears, was succeeded by PontianuV* — Cnap. 23, page 243. 
Anteros and Fabianus. 

"Gordian succeeded Maximus in t!ie sovereignty of Rome, when Pontianus 
who had held the episcopate six years, was succeeded by Anteros in the church 
of Rome; he also is succeeded by Fabianus." — Chap. 29, page 243. 

Cornelius. 
44 Deeius .... raised a persecution against the church, in which Fabianus 
suffered martyrdom, and was succeeded as bishop of Rome by Cornelius.' — 
Chap. 39, page 254. 

Lucius and Stephen. 
44 After Cornelius had held the episcopal office at Rome about three years, he 
was succeeded by Lucius, but the latter did not hol.l the office quite eight 
months, when dying he transferred it to Stephen." — Book VII. chap. 2, page 

Stephen and Xystus II. 
44 But after Stephen had hel I the episcopal office two years, he was tucceeded 
by Xystus." — Chap. 5, page 273. 

Dionysius. 
44 Xystus had been bishop of Rome eleven years, when he was succeeded by 
Dionjsius." — Chap. 27, page 302. 

Felix. 
44 Dionvsius, who had been bishop of Rome for nine years, was succeeded by 
Felix."— Chap. 30, page 303. 

EUTYCHIANUS, CAIUS, AND MARCELLINUS. 

44 At this time Felix, having hel J the episcopate at Rome five years, was suc- 
ceeded by Eutyr hianus, and he did not hold the office quite ten months, whtn he 
left his place to be occupied by Caius of our own day. Caius, also, presided 
about fifteen years, when he was succeeded by Marcellinus." — Chap. 32, page3i0 

MlLTIAD^S. 

44 Constantfne Augustus, to Miltiades bishop of Rome." — Book X. char:. T% 
pajre 429. 

I need only refer to what I have road from this authentic historian 
for splendid and indisputable proof. Here is the succession equally 
plain in all the churches, but longest in Borne, Thence it has been 
faithfully noticed, and regularly perpetuated in an uninterrupted chain 
of pontiffs down to the present chief pastor, auspiciously presiding 
over all the church. 

Now, my fripnd, in the name of God what is to become of this con- 
troversy, when testimony like this is overlooked] And to close the 
testimony of Eusebius who has embodied that of the preceding ages, 
so as to leave no doubt, that the same identical doctrines, the present 
organization, orders and sacraments of the Catholic church were those 
of the first ages of Christianity, and heresy too the same then that it now 
is. I crave your attention for one of the most instructive chapters 
that could possibly be read on a subject of such absorbing interest to 
the Christian. 

Cf Nov a 'tis, his manners and habi's, and h's heresy. 
About t' is time appeared Novatus (Novathn) a presbyter of the church of 
Rome, and a man elevated with haught'ness against these (that had falhn), as if 
there was no room for Mem to hop j salvation, not even, if they performed every 
thing for a genuine and pure confession. He thus became the leader of the pe= 
culiar heresy of those who, in the porno of their imaginations, called themselves 
Cathari. A very lirge council being held on account of this, at wl ich sixty in- 
deed of the bishops, but a still greater number of presbyters and deacons Were 
present ; the pastors of the remaining provinces, according to their places, deli- 
berate I separately what shoul 1 be done: this decree was passed by all; t4 That 
Wo vat us, in leed, and thc«e who so arrogantly united with him, and those that 
had determined to adopt tiie uncharitable and most inhuman opinion of the man. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 109 

these they considered among those that were alienated from the church; but 
that brethren who had incurred any calamity, should be treated and healed with 
the remedies of repentance." 

There are also epistles of Cornelius, bishop of Rome, addressed to Fabius, bi- 
shop of Antioch, which show the transactions of the council of Rome, as also, 
the opinions of all those in Italy and Africa, and the regions there. Others there 
are also written in the Roman tongue, from Cyprian, and the bishops with him in 
Africa. In these, it is shewn that they also agree in the necessity of relieving 
those who had fallen under severe temptations, and also in the propriety of ex- 
communicating the author of the heresy, and all that were of his party. To 
these is attached also an epistle from Cornelius on the decrees of the council, 
besides others on the deeds of Novatus, from which we may add extracts, that 
those who read the present work may know the circumstances respecting him 
What kind of a character Novatus was, Cornelius informs Fabius, writing as fol- 
lows: " But that you may know r , says he, how this singular man, who formerly 
aspired to the episcopate, and secretly concealed within himself this precipitate 
ambition, making use of those confessors that adhered to him from the beginning 
as a cloak for his own folly, I will proceed to relate: Maximus, a presbyter of 
our church, and Urbanus, twice obtained the highest reputation for their con- 
fessions. Sidonius also, and Celerinus, a man who, by the mercy of God, bore 
every kind of torture in the most heroic manner, and, by the firmness of his own 
faith strengthened the weakness of the flesh, completely worsted the adversary. 
These men, therefore, as they knew him, and had well sounded his artifice and 
duplicity, as also his perjuries and falsehoods, his dissocial and savage character, 
returned to the holy church, and announced all his devices and wickedness, which 
he had for a long time dissembled within himself, and this too in the presence of 
many bishops; and the same also, in the presence of many presbyters, and a 

treat number of laymen, at the same time lamenting and sorrowing that they 
ad been seduced, and had abandoned the church for a short time, through the 
agency of that artful and malicious beast." After a little, he further says : We 
have seen, beloved brother, within a short time, an extraordinary conversion and 
change in him. For this most illustrious man, and he who affirmed with the most 
dreadful oaths, that he never aspired to the episcopate, has suddenly appeared a 
bishop, as thrown among us by some machine. For this dogmatist, this (pre- 
tended) champion of ecclesiastical discipline, when he attempted to seize and 
usurp the episcopate not given him from above, selected two desperate characters 
as his associates, to send them to some small, and that the smallest, part of Italy, 
and from thence, by some fictitious plea, to impose upon three bishops there, men 
altogether ignorant and simple, affirming and declaring, that it was necessary for 
them to come to Rome in all haste, that all the dissension which had there aris- 
en might be removed through their mediation, in conjunction with the other bi- 
shops.^ When these men had come, being as before observed, but simple and 
plain in discerning the artifices and villany of the wicked, and when shut up 
with men of the same stamp with himself, at the tenth hour, when heated with 
wine and surfeiting, they forced them by a kind of shadowy and empty imposi- 
tion of hands, to confer the episcopate upon him, and which, though by no means 
suited to him, he claims by fraud and treachery. One of these, not long after, re- 
turned to his church, mourning and confessing his error, with whom also we com- 
muned as a layman, as all the people present interceded for him, and we sent suc- 
cessors to the other bishops, ordaining them in the place where they were. This 
asserter of the gospel then did not know that there should be but one bishop in 
a catholic church.* (^v xa3ox»x>j uxa.>io-(«V 

* Tiie . ^ ord cat holic, in its Greek etymology, means universal, as we have sometimes ex- 
plained it in this translation. It is applied to the Christian, as a universal church, partly 
to distinguish it from the ancient church of the Jews, which was limited, partial, and par- 
ticular in its duration, subjects and country. The Christian is also called a universal or 
catholic church, because it must in regard to doctrine hold quod semper, quod ub/que, quod 
ab omnibus. In this latter view, which it should be well observed is the original applica- 
tion, it is synonymous with orthodox. This is evident, from the fact that our author applies 
it to different churches in other parts of his history. And in the present instance the ex- 
pression is general, a eat/wlic church. It is in a sense allied to this also, that we are, no 
doubt, to understand the title of our general, (catholic) epistles, in the New Testament. 
They are catholic, .because as consonant to the doctrines of the church in all respects, they 
have been also universally received. In this sense, the term is also svnonymous with can- 
onical. 

K 



110 DEBATE ON T3IE 

In which, however, he well knew, (for how could he be ignorant ?) that there 
were forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two acoluthi 
(clerks,) exorcists, reader?, and janitors, in all fifty -two; widows, with the afflicted 
and needy, more than fifteen-hundred; all which the goodness and love of God 
doth support and nourish. But neither this great number, so necessary in the 
church, nor those that by the providence of God were wealth}- and opulent, toge- 
ther with the innumerable multitude of the people, were able to recall him and 
turn him from such a desperate and presumptuous course." And again, after these, 
he subjoins the following: " Now let us also tell by what means and conduct he 
had the assurance to claim the episcopate. Whether, indeed, it was because he 
was engaged in the church from the beginning, and endured many conflicts for her, 
and encountered many and great dangers in the cause of true religion'? None of all 
this. To him, indeed, the author and instigator of his faith was Satan, who enter- 
ed into and dwelt in him a long time. Who, aided by the exorcists, when attacked 
with an obstinate disease, and being supposed at the point of death, was baptised 
by aspersion, in the bed on which he lav; if, indeed, it be proper to say that one like 
him did receive baptism. But neither when he recovered from disease, did he par- 
take of other things, which the rules of the church prescribed as a duty, nor was he 
sealed (in confirmation) by the bishop. But as he did not obtain this, i ow could he 
obtain the Holy Spirit V And again, soon after, he says: M He denied he was a 
presbyter, through cowardice and the love of life, in the time of persecution. For 
when requested and exhorted by the deacons, that he should go forth from his re- 
treat, in which he had imprisoned himself, and should come to the relief of the bre- 
thren, as far as was proper and in the power of a presbyter to assist brethren requir- 
ing relief, he was so far from yielding to any exhortation of the deacons, that he 
went away offended and left them. For he said that he wished to be a presbyter no 
longer, for he was an admirer of a different philosophy." After this, he adds 
another deed, the worst of all the man's absurdities, thus : ** For having made 
the oblation, and distributed a part to each one, whilst giving this, he compels the 
unhappy men to swear instead of blessing ; holding the hands of the one receiv- 
ing, with both his own, and not letting them go until he had sworn in these words, 
for I shall repeat the very words: 'Swear to me, by the body and blood of our 
Savior, Jesus Christ, that you will never desert me, nor turn to Cornelius.* 
And the unhappy man is then not suffered to taste until he had first cursed him 
self; and instead of saying Amen, after he had taken the bread, he says. 'I will 
no longer return to Cornelius." And, after other matters, he again proceeds, as 
follows : " Now, you must know, that he is stripped and abandoned, the brethren 
leaving him every day and returning to the church. He was also excommunicat- 
ed by Moses, that blessed witness, who but lately endured a glorious and wonder- 
ful martyrdom, and who, whilst yet among the living, seeing the audacity and 
the folly of the man, excluded him from the communion, together with the 
five presbyters that had cut themselves off from the church." At the close of the 
epistle, he gives a list of the bishops who had come to Rome, and had discarded 
the incorrigible disposition of Novatus; at the same time adding the names, to- 
gether with the churches governed by each. He also mentioned those that were 
not present at Rome, but who, by letter, assented to the decision of the former, 
adding also the names and the particular cities whence each one had written. 
Such is the account written by Cornelius to Fabius bishop of Antioch. — From 
pages 283-4-5-6-7 of Eusebius' Eccles. Hist, transl. by Rev. C. F. Cruse, Book 
vi. chap. 43. — [Time expired.] 

Half past 11, A. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

I have some respect, my friends, not only to the audience who hear, 
but to those who may read this discussion ; and, therefore, I wish my 
argument to be as continuous and unbroken as possihle. I could, indeed, 
wish that my ingenious and eloquent opponent would reply to my 
speeches in regular sequence, and thus give more of system and tenacity 
to our debate. Before I trace his zigzag course, I wish to add to my last 
speech a few lrndred considerations. While it behooves him to prove 
that Peter was first bishop of Rome, I am gratuitously in display of my 
resources, as the advocate of Protestantism, rather spontaneously prov- 



KOMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. Ill 

ing a negative, or showing that Peter never was bishop of Rome. Two 
considerations may be added to my remarks on this head: 1st. The 
special commission, which he had to the Jews as Paul had to the 
Gentiles, precludes the idea of his here devoting himself to any por- 
tion of the Gentile world. The "ministry of the circumcision" was 
committed to him, and therefore not the Roman capital; hut rather the 
Syrian capital or Jerusalem should have been the place of his location. 
2d. His commission, as apostle, precludes the idea cf his being sta- 
tioned as bishop at any one place. You cannot place Peter as bishop 
of Rome, any more than you can make the president of the United 
States mayor of Cincinnati. The duties of these officers are not more 
incompatible than the duties of an apostle and a resident bishop. What 
are the duties of the bishop's chair] Are they not to watch over a 
particular diocese 1 ? What does the apostles' commission say 1 u Go 
ye into all the worlds and announce the glad tidings to the whole crea- 
tion." It would be as easy to prove that the bishop of London may 
be vicar of Bray, or curate of St. Ives, as that Peter was, or could be, 
bishop of Rome. These two considerations deserve the attention of 
my friend, and I hope that he will not pass them too in silence. 

That every important office, essential to the government of any com- 
munity, must have a place clearly specific in the constitution is scarce- 
ly necessary to prove ; yet, as my opponent seems to slur over this 
matter, I shall read a sentence or two of the Constitution of the United 
States, to show that in the estimation of its framers, it was necessary 
to have a distinct assertion of the office and power of the president. 

Art. II. Sect. 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the 
United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four 
years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term as fol- 
lows: 

Sect. 2. " Each state shall appoint,in such manner as the legislature there- 
of may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and 
representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress; but no senator 
or representative, or person holding any office of trust or profit under the Unit- 
ed States, shall be appointed an elector." The Americans Guide, p. 20. 

Now the head of the christian church was, at least, as wise as the 
convention which framed this instrument, foreseeing all the difficulties 
of the church in all time, and as he was determined to make all things 
plain, and certainly he was as capable as they to reveal and express 
his own will, had he resolved to build his church on the shoulder of 
St. Peter, he would have unequivocally expressed it. He would have 
defined the office, appointed the first officer, and legislated the mode 
of election. The practice of electing popes in the church of Rome is 
a candid acknowledgment that there is no law in the case: for they 
have had very different modes at different periods of their history. 
What would we Americans say, if every few years a new mode should 
be adopted, without regard to the constitution'? Would they submit 
to such a chief magistrate? 

The gentleman proceeded to read and reiterate his remarks on two 
passages of scripture, often before us: he objects to my criticism on 
the last chapter of John. His last remarks enable me to give it a 
more thorough exposition. He says my construction "requires the 
accusative for these" I say, with more of the philosophy of language, 
his construction requires the nominative. The question would have 
been plainly this : " Do you love me more than these love me." nx^ov, 
it is true, always requires the genitive ; but the whole construction of 



112 DEBATE ON THE 

the sentence would have been changed, if these were to be the nomina- 
tive to the verb here understood. My construction is critically correct 
as the sentence now reads, but it will not bear his construction. But 
there is yet another great assumption in the quotation of this passage 
on which I have not yet emphasized. He says, "feed my sheep" means, 
feed my pastors, and "feed my lambs" means, feed my flock. Mark the 
assumption, that sheep signifies pastors, and lambs the people ! Where 
does he find authority for this? If "sheep" any where else signified 
"clergy" and "lambs" laity, there would be some plausibility in it; 
but with the absence of such usage it is supremely whimsical and 
arbitrary ; and yet the point of this passage rests upon the assumption 
of sheep for clergy. So far he presses it into his service, for that 
bishops are to feed the flock is not disputed, but that one of them is 
before the others is the question in debate. 

The gentleman, on Saturday, called my interpretation of this pas- 
sage a fish story ; this mode of treating so holy an institution, so 
solemn a matter, is not in the true dignity of the subject, nor of the 
occasion ; nor is it very respectful to the great personage on whose 
words we comment; but the audience have not met it with a laugh, and 
therefore I presume they felt the incongruity. In the same style are 
the morning's remarks on the bones, &c. but the bishop might remem- 
ber there was more in the premises than the spoils of a single meal; 
there were many fish and all the apparatus before them, but no one 
would interpret the words of the question in that style on any other 
occasion. It was sustenance in general, and not a particular meal, 
concerning which the Savior spoke. 

The gentleman suggests that, in the 1st chap, of John, Christ in his 
first interview with Peter changes his name to Cephas ; and he as- 
sumes " that it was that he might afterwards make him the rock of 
his church !" It was a very common thing in the history of the patri- 
archs and Jews to change names. Thus we find from the beginning 
of their history, various instances of this : " Sarai" is changed into 
Sarah; " Abram" into Abraham; "Jacob" into Israel, Two of the 
apostles were called "Boanerges" sons of Thunder; but that did not 
convert them into thunder; neither did the name Cephas convert Peter 
into a stone. If I were to give a reason for the addition to Peter's 
name, (but it was neither change nor addition, rightly considered,) I 
would say that it was most probably occasioned by the fact, that Daniel 
spoke of the kingdom of the Messiah under the figure of a stone cut 
out of the mountain. With an eye probably to this kingdom of the 
stone, (as Peter was the first convert,) his name is improved by being 
translated into Syriac ; for after all, it is rather a translation of Petros 
than an addition to it! He was, however, the beginning of this new 
spiritual edifice, and a foundation stone; but only one among many. 

This kingdom of the stone, it is foretold by Daniel, was to com- 
mence in the days of the Cesars : but it was to become the kingdom 
of the mountain. It was, indeed, to become a great mountain, and fill 
the whole earth. This building is composed of a succession of foun- 
dations, provided only that all the popes are successors of Peter, in 
virtue of his being the rock. To have this whole building at the 
foundation, or to be always laying new foundations in every election 
of a pope is rather a singular idea, which grows out of the extravagance 
of the Romish assumption. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 113 

The bishop observes that a headless trunk is worth nothing, and 
would seem to think that our argument on that subject leaves the 
church without a head. Has the church no other head than the pope 1 ? 
Of whatever church the pope is head, that church is the body of the 
pope: And is it Christ's body too] The Romanists are the body of 
the bishop's church — cut the head off that body, or annul the pope's 
assumption and you destroy its organization. The gentleman rightly 
appreciates my argument: he feels that it makes the church of Rome 
a headless trunk: but the mistake is in supposing that this annihila- 
tion of the pretension annuls the church of Christ. Jesus Christ is in- 
dependent of the pope. He is head ; and the saints of all ages are the 
component parts of his spiritual, his mystical body '. 

The gentleman's allusion to the High Priest was peculiarly unfor- 
tunate. There never was but one high priest at a time : one in hea- 
ven and one on earth is without a single hint or allusion in the Bible. 
We cannot now descant upon such an incongruity. 

The word 'le/w? (Hierus) priest, occurs not once in the New Testa- 
ment, in reference to christian bishops, or deacons. It is only found 
once, and that in the apocalyptic style, in all the christian scriptures : 
for the idea of any one officiating on the earth as a sacrificing priest, or 
that christian bishops have aught of a priestly character is anti-christ- 
ian. But Christ is the anti-type of Aaron. The order of Aaron is ex- 
tinct. The order of Melchisidec is the model of the Christian High 
Priesthood. Christ is called of God as was Aaron : but he is called 
to officiate after the order of Melchisidec. The doctrine of Protestants 
is, that their High Priest made one great sacrifice for sin on earth : 
and that he offered it in the heavens ; and that by one offering of him- 
self, he has perfected the sanctified* " Brethren, consider the high priest 
of our profession, Jesus Christ." He ever lives and ever, intercedes, 
and is able to save to the uttermost all that come by him to God. We, 
therefore, need no high priest on earth. 

The gentleman has told us too often of his love for America, and his 
love for England. If he repeats these declarations so often, we shall 
begin to think he loves too much in word, and too little in fact. He 
tells you of 30,000 English bayonets employed in defence of the pa- 
pacy. And what of this? England is the cradle of all political free- 
dom. Our notions of free government were all promulged in English 
books, and taught in English schools before they were imported here. 
We have, indeed practised upon the science of free government more 
than our mother country. But as in America, we tolerate all religions : 
so the British empire in every country where she has territory or sub- 
jects, supports and protects all. England tolerates every thing. She 
supports Catholicism in Canada, Episcopacy in England, Presbyteri- 
anism in Scotland, and Paganism in the East Indies. Is she not too 
free and tolerant for my opponent, and for many Protestants ] ! She 
takes no part against any religion. The popular doctrine in England 
at this moment is, that Church and State ought not to be amalgama- 
ted, or consociated under the same earthly head. Indeed, she is dis- 
posed to follow her American children very far in this doctrine. 

The bishop seems to apply to Peter what was common to all the 

apostles, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in 

heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in 

heaven.' 5 I remark upon this passage, that when the Messiah gave 

K 2 15 



114 DEBATE ON THE 

the keys to Peter to open the kingdom of heaven to Jews and Gentiles, 
he did not appropriate to him the sole and exclusive power of binding 
and loosing : this power he bestowed on all the apostles. For after 
Peter opened the kingdom, they all introduced citizens into it, as well 
as he; and had the same official power; for as John says, chap. 20: 
he addressed them all — "As my Father hath sent me, so do I send 
you; whose soever sins you remit they are remitted to them, and whose 
soever sins you retain they are retained !"— This was spoken, in sub- 
stance, repeatedly to them all. It is therefore asserting too much, to 
say that Peter alone was gifted with this power. He only used it 
first. They always exercised it in its true intent and meaning. I shall 
be glad to resume again the regular order. 

We have heard much about the bishops of Rome and how they can 
be traced back even to Peter, &c, &c. I wish my learned opponent 
would confine himself to the proposition in debate, and permit me to 
go through with this argument, for succession. Then I will show of 
how much value are the traditionary enumerations found in Eusebius, 
from whose authors I can make out two or three successions. 

The gentleman brings up the erudition of the 4th century. I would 
as soon call on people in this room for testimony that the battle of Bun- 
ker's hill, or Blenheim was so and so fought — not one of whom lived 
at that time; as on persons living in one century to prove what hap- 
pened in centuries before they were born. In the fourth century there 
is one writer testifies to the succession. What a decisive proof ! Is 
there any testimony for the first two hundred years affirming this suc- 
cession? I affirm that there is not. All the tradition on earth fails 
just in this radical and essential point! 

Again : tradition is wholly silent on the election of the first popes. 
No one pretends to tell how Peter and Linus and Clement were in- 
vested with the office. Tradition is even in the hands of Catholics 
ashamed to depose any thing upon this point. We all know how to 
dispose of tradition three hundred years too late, in other matters; and 
I think to the matter of fact people of this generation, it must appear 
preposterous to prove an event by those w 7 ho lived one, tw T o, and three 
hundred years after. 

Irenaeus was introduced as a witness cf Peter's having been bishop 
of Rome : but Irenseus does not say so on his own responsibility : for 
he lived at the close of the second century. With him it was only 
hear-say. Again, his testimony of the church of Rome, having been 
plantedbj Paul and Peter is certainly false; and his saying that Poly- 
carp was appointed bishop of Smyrna by the apostles, greatly weakens 
his traditionary statements concerning the Roman see : for Polycarp 
must have been ordained in the year 97, as he died in the year 147, 
having been 50 years bishop of Smyrna. Consequently it was impos- 
sible he could have been ordained by the apostles : but of this again. 
While my opponent speaks so fluently of early fathers, and of the 
short interval of two or three hundred years from Christ, he seems to 
forget how long a hundred years, is, and how few know 7 much about 
the events that happened a hundred years ago. Even now, in this age 
of books and printing, and steam presses, and steam-boats, and rail- 
roads, and general reading, how 7 few of us could accurately, from me- 
mory relate the history of the American Revolution ! And yet the gen- 
tleman talks about the opportunities of a person to ascertain these his- 



BOMAH CATHOLIC RELIGION. 115 

toric facets, one or two hundred years after they occurred, from tradition 
too, in an age when all these facilities which we enjoy were unknown. 
Is not this tradition a very loose and uncertain witness ] — [Time 
expired.] 

Twelve o'clock, M. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

Irenaeus lived in the second century. He was a disciple of Poly- 
carp, who was a disciple of John the evangelist. Irenaeus, was bish- 
op of Lyons in France. The chain of testimony consists of three links. 
John the evangelist, Polycarp of Smyrna, Irenaeus of Lyons. John 
told Polycarp what Jesus did — Polycarp told Irenaeus what John-had 
told him, and Irenaeus bears testimony here. This edition was pub- 
lished by a Protestant divine, named Nich : Gallaisus. It is dedicated to 
Grindal, bishop of London ; and as I do not like to advance any thing 
merely on Catholic testimony, I prefer the Protestant to the Catholic 
edition of this father's works. Irenaeus distinctly says : " Since it 
would be very long to enumerate in this volume the succession of bish- 
ops in all the churches, by appealing to the tradition of a church the 

GREATEST AND MOST ANCIENT AND KNOWN TO ALL, which Was found- 
ed and established at Rome, by the two most glorious apostles, Peter 
and Paul ; a tradition which she has from the apostles, and the faith 
which she announces to men, and which comes down to us through 
the succession of bishops, we confound all those who in any way, 
either through evil self complacency or vain glory, or blindness and 
perversity gather otherwise than is meet. For with this church, on 
account of her more powerful principality, it is necessary that 
every church agree, that is the faithful who are on all sides, in 
which church, the tradition of the apostles has been preserved by the 
faithful who are on all sides." Iren. lib. m. chap. 3, (adversus hsere- 
ses.) 

Eusebius, has preserved for us a letter, written by the martyrs who 
suffered in Gaul, in the 19th year of Antonius Verus, and who were 
charged by the Pagans, as they say in their address to their fellow- 
citizens in Phrygia, " with feasts of Thyestes, {who ate part of his 
own son,) and the incests of CEdipus, and such crimes as are neither 
lawful for us to speak nor to think, and such indeed, as we do not be- 
lieve were committed." In this document the martyrs commend Ire- 
naeus, then a presbyter of the church of Lyons, to pope Eleutherus, 
whom Irenaeus appealed to on the subject of the Quarto-deciman con- 
troversy. I have this letter here in Greek. It may perhaps have 
more authority if I read the original. 

Thus do we perceive that Eleutherus was styled, "father and bishop 
of Rome," by these illustrious confessors of Jesus Christ, and his 
favor invoked in behalf of their brother. 

In book in. chap. 3, (the title of this chapter is, of the apostolic 
tradition, or the succession of bishops in the churches from the apos- 
tles.) ''These blessed apostles (Peter and Paul) founding and insti- 
tuting the church, delivered the care of administering it to Linus, cf 
whom Paul makes mention in his epistle to Timothy. To him suc- 
ceeded Anacletus, after whom Clement obtains the episcopacy, in 
the third place from the apostles, who had seen and conferred with the 
apostles, who had heard their preaching sounding in his ears, and had 



116 DEBATE ON THE 

with his own eyes beheld their traditions. Nor was he the only one — 
there were many more yet living- who had been taught by the apostles. 
Under this Clement, when no inconsiderable discussion occurred 
amonor the brethren at Corinth, the church of Rome addressed to them 
most forcible letters, gathering them together in peace, repairing their 
faiths and announcing to them the traditions they had recently rcceiv* 
ed from the apostles. To Clement succeeded Euaristus, and to Euaris- 
tus, Alexander; next was Sextus, sixth from the apostles, and after 
him Telesphorus, who also endured a most glorious martyrdom ; then 
Hyginus, afterwards Pius, and after him again Anicetus. But when 
Soter had succeeded Anicetus, now in the twelfth place from the apos- 
tles, Eleutherns hath the episcopate." There is then the fullest mani 
festation that one and the same vivifying faith has been handed down 
in the church and preserved to the present day. I would fain read 
the rest of this admirahle chapter, but enough — here is the volume to 
which all who are anxious for more proof are invited to refer. 

Tertullian, a little later says, confounding the heretics of his day — 
44 let them produce the origin of their churches, let them display the 
succession of their bishops, so that the first may appear to have been 
ordained by an apostolic man, who persevered in their communion." 
Lib. de praescrip. He then enumerates the pontiffs from St. Peter, to 
his own time in the Roman see, and concludes by the memorable 
words, " Let heretics exhihit any thing like this." The evidence 
of Eusebius is also before you. On this subject I have one remark to 
make, which no one in this assembly who sincerely desires to know 
the truth, and of such I trust, the number is not small, will hear with 
indifference. This is, that in the letter of Cornelius, bishop of Rome, 
to Fabius, bishop of Antioch concerning Novatus, which is given in 
full by Eusebius, and is a faithful exhibition of the doctrines of the 
whole church at that early period, there is not a single doctrine or 
usage mentioned, which is not taught and observed in the Catholic 
church in this very city, at this very hour. Is not this an admirable 
proof of the apostolicity of our church 1 The supremacy of the pope 
in the supplying of vacant sees, the sacraments of the holy eucharist, 
baptism, confirmation, orders, a hierarchy, bishops, priests, deacons, 
subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers, porters, or janitors; asylums 
for the needy and afflicted — one bishop in a Catholic church ; the 
right of excommunication, acquiescence of other bishops, personally 
testified or by letter, in the judgment of the bishop of Rome, &e. 
&c. &c. In the same letter we see heretics pictured to the life, the 
errors and evil practices of some modern sectarians described and 
strongly reprobated, viz : the forcing of communicants to take an oath 
never to quit a church they have joined. This I know to have occur- 
red in Maryland, and I presume it is not uncommon. 

Three o'clock P. 31. 

Mr. Campbell rises — 

The last halfchour of the gentleman was spent in culling antiquity 
to find some collateral evidence in attempting to defend the great point 
of the succession of pontiffs ; and with what success you have all seen. 
His sensibility on the present occasion is truly gratifying. His con- 
duct here shows that he perceives it to be vital, supreme] y essential 
to his system to make Ptter bishop of Rome, and to fix theflrst twen- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 117 

ty nine links in the apostolic chain. But the barrenness of ancient 
history cannot be remedied in the nineteenth century. He brought 
forward one fragment of antiquity on the subject; and it is the only 
fragment on which Eusebius himself relies. In truth that fragment, 
the Latin version of Irenaeus, is the only fragment of antiquity now 
extant, or extant in the time of Constantine, from which any thing 
can be gleaned on this subject. And he never once says that either 
Paul or Peter separately or jointly were bishops of the church of Rome ! 
And here again I cannot suppress my astonishment at the choice of 
the Romanists : — Why they did not make Paul rather than Peter 
bishop of Rome. In the first place he was a bachelor ; and that is 
now a most cardinal point : again, he informs us that " he had the care 
of all the churches." He says, moreover, that he is not behind the 
chief of the apostles. This is rather disrespectful of pope Peter ! 
It could be so easily proved, too, that he was once at Rome (though 
a prisoner for two full years.) Now, if he did not plant the church 
of Rome ; he certainly watered it. He labored more abundantly than 
all the other apostles. Is it not then ten fold more probable that 
Paul rather than Peter was bishop of Rome 1 But probability will 
not do in the case. We must have the strongest evidence : we must 
have contemporary testimony : we cannot prove a fact by witnesses 
who did not see it. We require the evidence of sense. We should 
not believe the records of Christ's actions, even, unless we received 
them from eye and ear witnesses. To illustrate the difficulties that 
environ my ingenious opponent, I will suppose a case like the one he 
nets to manage. Suppose that in the year one thousand, a tradition 
had been current that a certain bridge over the river Tiber had been 
built in the time of the apostles, and that Peter laid the corner stone 
of the Roman abutment. Some incredulous persons began then to doubt 
of the matter, and called upon those who affirmed that Peter laid that 
stone to prove it. They go to work. They found very many believ- 
ing it in the 10th century : fewer in the 9th, fewer in the 8th, fewer 
in the 7th, till within 200 years of the time, they find only one person 
that affirms faith in it, and with him it is an unwritten tradition. All 
record ceases. There is a perfect chasm of 200 years without a sin- 
gle witness. Hew shall they throw a bridge over this chasm ? 
Where is tradition during this period ] Is there not one voice 1 Not 
one. But they say it is only two hundred years ! But according to 
all the laws of mind and society, these two hundred years should 
have the most witnesses : for, the nearer we approach any true event, 
the more numerous are the vouchers of its reality and authenticity. 
Therefore the total failure of testimony during that period is fatal to 
the credibility of the tradition. But they say, it was traditionary for 
two hundred years : but who can prove the tradition 1 It is as hard 
to prove this tradition as the fact ! To prove the existence of it first, 
and then the authenticity of it afterwards, is only rising from the po- 
sitive to the superlative difficulty. We can as easily build a house in 
the air eighteen stories high, leaving out the two basement stories, as 
prove the truth of an event 1800 years old, finding a chasm of 200 
years in which there is not one word about it. The church of Rome 
believes many miracles of her own on mere tradition. There is a le- 
gend in Ireland to this day, commonly believed, that St. Patrick 1200 
years ago literally sailed from that country to Scotland on a mill stone. 
Now, if we trace this back we shall find the evidence diminishes 



118 DEBATE ON THE 

with every century until you comejwithin two or three centuries of 
the time assigned. Then it comes to a solitary individual, who heard 
some one say, that he heard another one say, that such a one 
dreamed so ! 

I think it would be well to advert more pointedly to that law of 
mind, that the testimony of a fact is always best and strongest be- 
cause of the number and opportunity of the witnesses at the time, or 
near the time it actually existed. For example, at this day, there are 
many biographies of Washington and narratives of the revolutionary 
war ; some four or five hundred years hence there will be but one or 
two. This is the established order of things. Genuine evidence 
diminishes as we descend from, and increases as we ascend up to the 
eveuts, or facts recorded. All history is proof of this. It is a law 
of evidence, and a law of the human mind. Therefore, had Peter 
been bishop of Rome, we would, as we advanced upwards have found 
much more evidence of it than in the third and fourth centuries. But 
on the subject of tradition, I will gratify my audience with a few re- 
marks from Du Pin : certainly he had no temptation to weaken its au- 
thority. 

'/ .Criticism is a kind of torch, that lights and conducts us, in the obscure 
tracts of antiquity, by making- us able to distinguish truth from falsehood, his- 
tory from fable, and antiquity from novelty. 'Tis by this means, that in our 
times we have disengaged ourselves from an infinite number of very common 
errors into which our fathers fell for want of examining things by the rules of 
true criticism. For 'tis a surprising thing to consider how many spurious books 
we find in antiquity; nay, even in the first ages of the church. Several reasons 
induced men to impose books upon the world, under other men's names. 

The first and most general, is, the malice of heretics; who, to give the great- 
er reputation to their heresies, composed several books, which they attributed 
to persons of great reputation; in which they studiously spread their own er- 
rors, that so they might find a better reception, under the protection of these 
celebrated names. And thus the first heretics devised false gospels, false acts, 
and false epistles of the apostles, and their disciples: and thus those that came 
after them published several spurious books, as if they had been written by or- 
thodox authors, that so they might insensibly convey their errors into the minds 
of their readers, without their perceiving the cheat. 

The second reason that inclined people to favor books under other men's 
names, is directly contrary to the first; being occasioned by the indiscreet piety 
of some persons, who thought they did the church considerable service in forg- 
ing ecclesiastical or profane monuments in favor of religion and the truth. And 
this idea prevailed with some ancient christians to forge some testimonies In be- 
half of the christian religion, under the name of the Sibyls, Mercurius Tris* 
megistus, and divers others: and likewise induced the Catholics to compose 
some books, that they might refute the heretics of their own times with the 
greatest ease. And lastly: the same motion carried the'Catholics so far, as to 
invent false histories,fa'.se miracles, andfalse lives of the saints, to keep up the 
piety of the faithful. 

The third reason of the forgery of some books, keeps a middle way between 
those we have already mentioned; for there have been some persons in the 
world, that have been guilty of this imposture, without any other design, than 
to divert themselves at the expense of their readers, and to try how neaily they 
could imitate the style of other men. Hence it is, that some authors have com- 
posed treatises under St. Cyprian s, St. Ambrose s and St. Austin s names — 
***** desiring rather (as the Abbot of Billi says,) to ap- 
pear abroad, and be esteemed under other men's names than to continue despis- 
ed, and be buried in darkness, by writing in their own. And these are the rea- 
sons that may have occasioned the forgery of books; malice, indiscreet piety, 
and the humors of men. 

But besides these reasons that have advanced this trade of forgery, there are 



R03IAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 119 

several others that have occasioned the setting authors' names to several books, 
which they never writ. 

'Tis very ill done to conclude that such a book is spurious, because it pinch- 
es us, and afterwards to starch for reasons why it may be thought so." [Pre- 
face, p. 6, 7. 

We select only one of all these judicious and weighty remarks, 
from one of the most learned of Roman Catholics, viz. " that the Cath- 
olics themselves have invented false histories, false miracles, and 
false lives of the saints," to promote piety in their own members, 
from which I emphatically ask the question : What is an article cf 
faith worth which is founded alone upon the traditions of that church ?! 
I will only add, these are the words of Du Pin, a learned and authen- 
tic ecclesiastical historian, whose work is published by the authority 
cf the learned doctors of the Sorbonne. 

I have, let me now add, strong suspicions of the authenticity of 
that passage of Irenasus. The Greek original in the first place is 
lost : and in the second place the Latin translation was not found for 
some hundreds of years afterwards. In the third place, two things 
asserted by Irenaeus are not true : 1st, that Peter and Paul founded 
the Roman church ; whereas it has been shown by Paul's letter to 
the Romans, not to have been the case. 2d. This same Irenaeus says, 
that Polycarp was ordained by the apostles, when according to Poly- 
carp himself, he was not ordained till the year 97, when all the apos- 
tles were dead save John, and there is no document to prove that even 
John lived till that time. Thus dispose we of Roman traditions. 

The gentleman first introduced this authority which I have in my 
hand — an Episcopalian doctor — one of the most learned authors of the 
present day, George Waddington — " History of the Church, 1834." 
This author enumerates the bishops of Rome; but listen to his own 
candid testimony. In his chronological table of eminent men, and of 
the principal councils, he says : 

44 The succession of the earliest Bishops of Rome and the duration of their go 
vernment, are involved in inexplicable confusion." 

But I have here before me the Romanorum Pontificum Index — a 
chronological index of the Roman pontiffs, prefixed to Eusebius. I 
have compared it for the first two centuries with Eusebius and some 
of the primitive fathers, on whose authority it partially rests, and I can 
say with confidence there is no faith can be reposed in it. I find the 
authorities on which its assertions rest sometimes obscure, frequently 
contradictory, and often at variance with other facts which they assert; 
involving the credibility of the whole story of the successions from 
different chairs. There are the following traditions to be collected 
from Eusebius and his fathers for only the first five links of this chain • 

1st. Lineage. 2nd. Lineage. 3rd. Lineage. Ath. Lineage. 

1. Peter. 1. Linus. 1. Peter. 1. Peter. 

2. Linus. 2. Anacletus. 2. Anacletus. 2. Clement. 

3. Cletus. 3. Clement. 3. Clement. 3. Linus. 

4. Clement. 4. Sixtus. 4. Alexander. 4. Cletus. 

5. Anacletus. 5. Alexander. 5. Evaristus. 5. Alexander. 

I might argue this subject for hours and hours, but it is not worth 
it. I do not like to imitate rny opponent in dilating upon matters,which, 
whether true or false, do not affect tne points at issue the weight of a fea- 
ther. But the display we have now made of the beginning of succes- 
sion, according to various traditions and statements, is susceptible of 
immediate proof, and shows how vacant and dubious these oral and 



120 DEBATE ON THE 

hearsay traditions are. Is not Waddington justified in saying "this 
matter is involved in inexplicable confusion?" and well it is that saving 
faith depends not upon such testimony! 

I have said the Romanists have never been uniform in electing their 
popes. I can show some six or seven different modes of filling 
the chair of Peter, equally approved by the church of different 
ages. The chair has often been filled by bribery, by force, by the 
bayonet, and by all sorts of violence. It has been filled by men and 
boys, and by all sorts of characters. But of this more fully at an- 
other time. 

The gentleman remarked, on Saturday, that the pope is not infalli- 
ble. The question was not about the man, but the pope, I take him 
at his word, and will now prove, that neither the present pope nor his 
predecessors are successors of Peter; because Peter was infallible, 
both in doctrine and in discipline. How, then, can these fallible 
gentry — these fallible popes — be successors to Peter, in the capa- 
city of officers, when they have not the grace of office, — my opponent 
himself being judge 1 ? 

I shall now attempt continuously to show, that if even Peter had 
been placed by a positive precept in the office of vicar and head of the 
church, all the official grace of such an appointment has failed by the 
various schisms in the Roman see. The chain has been broken ; for 
Roman Catholics themselves admit, at least, twenty-two schisms; 
some count twenty-six, Protestants can find twenty-nine, I have al- 
ready shown that the hook and the first link must be better secured, 
if not welded; for Peter the hook and first link has not yet been fas- 
tened to the right place ; and some of the first links are so entangled 
that Eusebius, the pope, and G. Waddington, cannot strengthen them. 
And to quote the words of A, Pope, not the pope, if one link be missing, 
" Tenth or ten thousandth breaks the chain alike.' 1 

Ah me! I am jostled out of my course again! The mention of 
Eusebius reminds me that the bishop has quoted him against the No- 
vatians, &c. But what avails the testimony of Eusebius as a sectary? 
It is quoting a Jansenist against a Jesuit — a Calvinist against an Ar- 
minian — a Romanist against a Protestant. Eusebius speaks as a his- 
torian, and he speaks as a sectary,- sometimes Arian, perhaps, some- 
times Trinitarian ; but certainly opposed to Novatus and his party. 
It is very hard for a warm partizan, in any case, to state his opponent's 
views fairly. I have never yet heard any one oppose Calvinism, or 
Arminianism, just precisely as it was. There is some little difference 
or other in the most equitable hands, which the opposite party would 
not have stated just so; and we know how often the merits of contro- 
versy rests upon these minute matters. Novatus and Cornelius were 
both elected bishops of Rome, and a controversy arose on their respec- 
tive claims. In the course of the controversy, we learn, that it turned 
on these two points : 

" That Cornelius admitted those who had been guilty of Idolatry to communion; 
and Novatus taught that the church neither could nor ought to admit those to the 
communion that had apostatized." Du Pin. Vol. I. p. 135. 

Novatus was the rival of his friend Cornelius, and he regards him 
as an anti-pope ; he is, indeed, called anti-pope 1st. And, at this day, 
we cannot tell whether Novatus or Cornelius was the successor of 
Peter ! So the first schism commenced, and we look for the faithful 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 121 

witnesses against Roman assumption from that hour amongst the Re- 
monstrants — call them the Novatians, Puritans, or Protestants. 

The second schism we shall notice is that between Liberius and 
Felix, A. D. 367. 

41 Constantius being enraged against St. Athanasius, as supposing him the cause 
of that enmity which his brother Constans had against him, Liberius as to this 
answered wisely, you ought not, sir, to make use of bishops to revenge your 
quarrels ; for the hands of ecclesiastics ought not to be employed, but only to 
bless and to sanctify. At last Constantius threatened him with banishment ; ' I 
have already,' says he, * bid adieu to my brethren at Rome, for the ecclesiastical 
laws are to be preferred before my living there.' Three days time were given 
him to consider of it, and because he did not change his opinion in that time he 
was banished two days after to Berea a city of Thrace. The emperor, the em- 
press, and the eunuch Eusebius, offered him money to bear the expenses of his 
journey, but he refused it, and went away cheerfully to the place of his banish- 
ment. The clergy of Rome having lost their head, took an oath to choose no- 
body in the room of Liberius as long as he was alive ; but Constantius, by the 
management of Epictetus bishop of Centumcellar in Italy, procured one Felix a 
deacon to be ordained bishop, who was himself also one of them that had sworn 
not to choose a bishop in the room of Liberius * * * But Liberius, who had 
given proof of so great constancy in time of peace, could not long endure the 
tediousness of banishment ; for before he had been two years in it, he suffer- 
ed himself to be over persuaded by Demophilus bishop of that city, ofwhich he 
was banished, and did not only subscribe the condemnation of St. Athanasius ; 
but he also consented to an heretical confession of faith." — Du Pin. Vol. I. p. 190. 

Now, if we take Liberius for the true pope, we must take an JLrian 
head ; for it must be acknowledged that he subscribed the heretical 
and Arian creed ; and, perhaps, at this time the majority of the Roman 
Catholic church were Arians ; but that is not the present inquiry. 

We shall now read an account of the third schism : I 

DAMASUS, BISHOP OF ROME. 

** After the death of pope Liberius, which happened in the year 369, the see 
of Rome being vacant for some time, by reason of the caballing of those that pre- 
tended to fill it, Damasus at last was chosen by the greater part of the clergy 
and people, and ordained by the bishops. But on the other side, Ursinus, 
or rather Ursicinus, who was his competitor for the popedom, got himself 
ordained by some other bishops in the church of Sicinus. This contest caused 
a great division in the city of Rome, and stirred up so great a sedition there as 
could hardly be appeased. The two parties came from words to blows, and 
many christians were killed in the churches of Rome upon this quarrel. The 
governor of Rome called Prcetextus, being desirous to allay the heat of this 
contention, sent Ursicinus into banishment by the emperor's order: but his 
banishment did not perfectly appease the quarrel; for the partizans of Ursicinus 
assembled still in the churches ofwhich they were possessed, without ever com- 
municating with Damasus; and even when the emperor had ordered that their 
churches should betaken from them, they still kept up their assemblies without the 
city, so that it was necessary at last to drive them quite out of Rome. And yet all 
this did not hinder Ursicinus from having his secret associates in Italy and 
at Rome. The bishop of Puteoli called Florentius, and the bishop of Parma were 
most zealous for his interests. They were condemned in a council held at Rome 
in the year 372, and afterwards banished by the authority of the emperor. How- 
ever they found means to return into their own country, and stirred up new 
troubles there. They got pope Damasus to be accused by one Isaac, a Jew. 
This accusation was examined in a council of bishops held at Rome, in the year 
378, which declared Damasus innocent of the crime that was laid to his charge. 
This council wrote a letter to the emperor Gratian, praying him to take some 
order for the peace of the church of Rome. The emperor wrote to them, that 
Ursicinus was detained at Cologne, that he had given order to banish Isaac in- 
to a corner of Spain, and to force the bishops of Puteoli and Parma, out of their 
country. This did not hinder Ursicinus from returning into Italy in the year 
381, where he stirred up new tumults, and endeavored to nre-engage the empe- 
ror: but the bishops of Italy being assembled in a council at Aquileia, in the 

L 16 



122 DEBATE ON THE 

year 381, wrote so smartly to him, that he banished Ursicinvs forever, and left 
Damasus in peaceable possession of the see of Rome, in which he continued un- 
til the year 384." Du Pin. Vol. I. p. 226, 227.— [Time expired.] 

Half past 3 o'clock, P. M. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

In the 2nd. century lived Tertullian — a priest in Africa. He showed 
how clear was the chain of tradition — he says distinctly that Peter was 
bishop of Rome. I am going to quote another splendid passage from 
his testimony. But first let me ask, how could a massive, an enormous 
volume like this (holding it up) of which the zeal of the early Christ- 
ians, has made so many copies ; and a portion of which, the admirable 
apologetic, or defence of our Christian ancestors, was addressed to the 
Pagan Emperors, have been vitiated 1 It was spread over the whole 
world — it was read with avidity by Christians and heathens. It is 
authentic history and based on testimony far more credible than we 
possess of the genuineness of Homer, or Horace, of Tacitus, or Cicero. 
We could not believe any fact of history, not even our title to our houses 
and other goods and chattels, without admitting it. How else but by 
such records, do we know with certainty of events of which our senses 
have not taken cognizance, of which we have no personal knowledge, that 
a few years ago we fought a hard battle with England and gained our 
independence I That our general was named Washington, and that he 
was aided by La Fayette 1 Comparatively recent as these events be, they 
are matters of tradition ! and tradition is but another name for history. 
Admit my learned opponent's principle, and the world will be turned 
topsy-turvy. We cannot be sure of any thing. I now cite Tertullian; 
and mark, I pray you, the clearness and force of his reasoning in the 
following syllogism, for apostolical succession. 

Tertullian de prasscriptione adversus haereticos, lib. p. 394. " If the Lord Jesus 
Christ sent his apostles to preach, no other preachers are to be received than 
those whom he commissioned : for no one knows the Father but the Son, and 
they to whom the Son hath revealed him, nor is the Son seen to have reveal- 
ed him to any others than the apostles, whom he sent to preach what he reveal- 
ed to them. Now what they preached, that is to say, what Christ revealed to 
them, I will here lay down as a principle (hie praescribam) cannot be otherwise 
proved than by the same churches which the apostles, themselves, founded, by 
preaching to them, themselves, both by word of mouth, as they say, and, after- 
wards, by their epistles. If this be so, it is therefore plain that all the doctrine 
which agrees with these apostolic churches, the matrices and originals (or exem- 
plars) of faith, is to be reputed true, as undoubtedly, holding that which the 
churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from 
God : but that all other doctrine is to be prejudged false, as teaching contrari 
ly to the churches and to the apostles, to Christ and to God. All, therefore, 
that remains now to be done is to demonstrate that the doctrine we preach, as 
already explained, has been handed down to us from the apostles, and thus con- 
vict all other doctrines of falsehood "They, (the heretics) object that Peter 

was reprehended by Paul. But let those who make this allegation shew that 
Paul preached a different gospel from what Peter preached and the other apos- 
tles. If Peter was reprehended for withdrawing, through human respect, from 
intercourse with the Gentiles, with whom he previously associated, this was a 
fault of conduct (conversations) not of preaching. He did not, on this account, 
preach a different God from the Creator, a different Christ from the son of Ma- 
ry, a different hope from that of the resurrection — and, (to refute these here- 
tics,) I will answer as it were for Peter, that Paul, himself, said that he made 
himself, all things to all men, a Jew to the Jews, and no Jew to those who were 
no Jews, that he may gain all. So that Paul reprehended, under certain cir- 
cumstances, in Peter, what he, himself, under certain circumstances, did." 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 123 

But I might read the whole book of prescriptions by Tertullian 
against heretics. 

The fish story again — here is Henry's exposition of the Bible. The 
principal meaning, in his view, is that which I have given. 

Could Paul, my friends, claim to be the chief of the apostles? He 
had probably done more than any man then living against Christianity, 
until prostrated by anger and mercy, on the road to Damascus. " Saul, 
Saul, why persecutest thou me" changed him from a wolf to a lamb, 
from a persecutor to an apostle. 

Eusebius informs us that Paul of Samosata, was deposed by a coun- 
cil in consequence of the heresy introduced by him at Antioch, of which 
a detailed account had been rendered by the council to Dionysius, bish- 
op of Rome. Paul being unwilling to leave the building of the 
church, "an appeal was made to the emperor Aurelian, who decided 
most equitably on the business, ordering the building to be given up 
to those whom the christian bishops of Rome and Italy should write." 
Another Pagan, Ammianus Marcellinus, giving an account of the 
persecution raised by the emperor Constantius against the famous 
patriarch of Alexandria St. Athanasius, tells us that this emperor 
strove hard to procure the condemnation of Athanasius by Liberius, on 
account of the supreme authority enjoyed by the bishops of the Roman 
see." " Even from the mouths of babes and sucklings," says the 
Scriptures, " hath God made perfect praise." I may observe, that he 
has extorted testimony from Pagan kings and historians, to prove the 
authority of the bishop of Rome throughout the Christian world. 

My friend has introduced the subject of unity, in connection with 
tradition. We shall argue that, if he pleases, from the Bible ; but in 
the mean time let us hear Cyprian, a bishop of Carthage, in Africa, 
on this subject, in the 3d. century. I am bold to say, you have never 
heard argument stronger, illustration more apposite, or language more 
beautiful, than what this father employs. 

Cyprian, de Unitate Ecclesiae Catholicae, p. 181, and De Simplici Prses. The 
primacy is given to Peter that the church and the chair of Christ may be shewn 
to be one. And all the apostles and shepherds, bat there is seen but one flack, 
fed by all the apostles with unanimous consent ; can he who holdeth not 
this unity, believe he holds the faith ? Can he who resists and opposes the 
church, who forsakes the chair of Peter, on which the cnurch was founded, flat- 
ter himself that he is in the church, while the apostle Paul teaches the same 
thing and shews the sacrament of unity, saying, "ONE body; and one spirit, 

ONE HOPE OF YOUR VOCATION, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE 

God." Let no man deceive the brotherhood by a lie ; let no man, by perfidi- 
ous prevarications corrupt the truth of faith ! The episcopacy is one, each se- 
parate part being consolidated in one. The church too is one, with luxuriant 
fertility extending her branches throughout. As there are many rays of light, 
but no more than one sun, many branches, but only one trunk, held fast in the 
earth by its tenacious root, many streams gushing from one fountain, but all 
blended in their source. Sever a ray from the sun, the unity of light suffers 
no division ; break a branch from the tree, the broken branch will bud no more, 
cut off a stream from the source, the severed stream will dry up. So likewise 
the church, irradiated with the light of the Lord, diffuses her rays throughout 
the universe. The light, however, which is every where diffused is one, nor is 
the unity of the body separated. She spreads her copious streams, but there is 
one head, one origin, one blessed mother with a numerous progeny. We are 
her offspring, we are nourished with her milk, we are animated with her spirit, 
He can no longer have God for his father, who has not the church for his moth- 
er. If any one out of the ark of Noe could escape, so likewise he that is out 
of the church may escape. The Lord says, I and the Father are one : again, it 
is written of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost: " and these three are one," 



124 DEBATE ON THE 

and can any one imagine that the unity which proceeds from divine "strength, 
and which is maintained by divine sacraments, can be torn asunder in the church, 
and destroyed by the opposition of discordant hearts?" 

I will now go over the ground, my friend travelled this morn- " 
ing. He said we allowed that we had two high priests on earth. I 
protest against the gentleman's saying for me what I have not said. 
One high Priest we have in heaven, God. He has a vicar on earth, 
the pope. But that vicar wields no authority but from God. 

I have, again, been reprehended for endeavoring to gain friends by 
expressing a liking for the English people, the Irish, and the Ameri- 
cans. But, my friends, have I done them more than justice 1 Have I 
swerved from the truth! Have I not said that the English had a 
thousand faults? — [Time expired.] 

Four o'clock, P. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

We have had a learned discussion on the unity of the church. We 
can sit and patiently hear my opponent while he fills up his time by 
reading the views of the saints on unity or any thing else he may 
deem edifying. But as this is not the business now before us, we 
shall be glad he would choose some other time for it. On this sub- 
ject we have no controversy at the present time : and that the church 
should be one, and that she is one virtually and in fact, we doubt not. 
All that has been read by my opponent on this subject is wholly a 
free will offering, instead of that argument which the occasion demands. 

Was Peter ever bishop of Rome 1 That indeed was a question : but 
is it a standing question 1 How often will my opponent recur to it 
without proving it 1 He says, indeed, that Irenaeus says that he was : 
but I say, not a line can be shown from Irenaeus nor any other writer 
of the first two centuries affirming in so many words that Peter was 
bishop of Pome ! Let him then refute me at once, by producing the 
passages. He might have heard so. He has produced Tertullian as 
a commentator or a retailer of traditions. That you may know some- 
thing of Tertullian as a theorist, and commentator, I will read you by 
way of offset a sample or two, simply to show how much these opi- 
nions are worth. He speaks very advantageously of custom and 
tradition, and relates several remarkable examples of ceremonies which 
he pretends to be derived from tradition. 

'* To begin," says he, " with baptism, when we are ready to enter into the wa- 
ter, and even before we make our protestations before the bishop, and in the 
church, that we renounce the devil, all his pomps and ministers : afterward, we 
are plunged in the water three times, and they make us answer to some things 
which are not precisely set down in the gospel; after that they make us taste 
milk and honey, and we bathe ourselves every day, during that whole week. We 
receive the sacrament of the eucharist, instituted by Jesus Christ, when we eat, 
and in the morning assemblies we do not receive it but from the hands of those 
that preside there. We offer yearly oblations for the dead in honor of the mar- 
tyrs. We believe that it is not lawful to fast on a Sunday and to pray to God 
kneeling. From Easter to Whitsuntide we enjoy the same privilege. We take 
great care not to suffer any part of the wine and consecrated bread to fall to the 
ground. We often sign ourselves with the sign of the cross. If you demand a 
law for these practices taken from scripture, we cannot find one there ; but we 
must answer, that His tradition that has established them, custom has authorized 
them, and faith has made them to be observed." Tertull. De Corona Militis. 

When Tertullian asserts a fact, I believe : but when he relates a 
dream, a guess, an opinion, or reports a tradition, I listen to him as 
to the speculations of a contemporary. You shall have it both in 
Latin and English. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 125 

M Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae, per- 
curre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis 
praesidentur, apud quas ipsae authenticae literae recitantur, sonates vocem, et 
repraesentantesfaciem uniuscuj usque. Proxima est tibi Achaia? Habes Corinthum. 
Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si po- 
tes in Asiani tendere, habes Ephesum. Si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Roraam, 
unde nobis quoque aucotritas praesto est." 

" Come now, you who are desirous more fully to devote yourselves to the great 
affair of your salvation, hasten to the apostolic churches. Still do the very 
chairs of the apostles yet stand in their own places: still are their authentic letters 
recited, which sound forth their very tones, and which faithfully exhibit their 
very countenances. If you are in Achaia, you have Corinth : if in Macedonia, you 
have Philippi and Thessalonica. If you journey into Asia, you have Ephesus. 
If Italy be your residence, you have Rome," &c. 

On this precious excerpt I will only remark that it fully proves, 

1. That the authentic copies or autographs of the apostolic epistles 
were extant in the time of Tertullian, in those churches to which 
they were addressed. — 

2. That the superiority of these churches named above others, so 
far as salvation was concerned, was, that they had these authentic 
epistles carefully preserved and read. — 

3. That as respected authority in the grand affair of salvation, in 
the judgment of Tertullian, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus 
and Rome were equal. — Pardon the digression. The extract is worth 
a volume in prostrating the arrogant pretensions of Rome. 

One word on the text, as commented on by Matthew Henry. I 
have had his work in my library for twenty five years. He is a high- 
ly esteemed practical commentator : but is not ranked among critics. 
But yet he decides nothing for my opponent. He admits that it may 
be either the one or the other explanation. But mind me. The Roman 
Catholic doctrine requires the explanation "lovestthou me more than 
these love me ;" because it was on account of a supremacy of love 
over all the apostles, that it claims for Peter the supremacy. But 
Henry admits that Christ may have alluded to the nets and boats and 
occupation of Peter; while he refers to or says, "do you love me 
more than your companions." The Messiah never, indeed, had any 
jealousy of that sort. His comment on John xxi. 15, reads : 

" Lovest thou me more than these"? Better than James or John thy intimate 
friends, or Andrew, thy own brother and companion? Those do not love Christ 
a right, that do not love him better than the best friend in the world, and make 
it appear, when ever they stand in competition, or, more than these things, 
these boats and nets! Those only love Christ indeed, that love him better than 
all the delights of sense and all the occupations and profits of this world. Lov- 
est thou me more than these? If so, leave them to employ thyself wholly in 
feeding- my flock." Henry's Commentary. 

But I would like to read what this commentator says about the rock .- 

Matthew xvi. 18. " And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this 
rock, I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 

Peter's confession contains that fundamental truth, respecting the person and 
offices of Christ, upon which, as on a rock, he would build his church. Nor 
could the powers of death or the entrance into the eternal world, destroy the 
hope of those who should build on it. Nothing can be. more absurd than to sup- 
pose that Christ meant that the person of Peter was the rock, on which the 
church should be builded; except it be the wild notion that the bishops of Rome 
have since substituted in his place! Their rock is not as our rock, our enemies 
themselves being judges. Without doubt, Christ himself the rock — and tried 
foundation of the church, and woe be to him who attempts to lay any other. 76. 

If then, Matthew Henry is good authority on one point he is good 
on the other. 
L 2 



126 DEBATE ON THE 

Bishop Otey of Tennessee has been unceremoniously dragged into 
this controversy. He is a gentleman for whom I entertain a very 
high regard : and while we differ on some questions, concerning dio- 
cesan episcopacy, we perfectly agree on the import of 'ltgus (Hierus) 
a priest, as applied to christians. He has no idea, more than myself 
of a christian hierus, or priest offering sacrifices for sins on earth. He 
has not answered, indeed, seven letters addressed to him by myself on 
bishop Onderdonk's tract on diocesan episcopacy : but yet it is not 
too late. We expect one of these bishops to reply to them. 

The Roman Catholics alone contend that priests, by which they 
mean an order of clergy, can offer sacrifice for sins. Nay, indeed, 
Mr. Hughes in his controversy with Mr. Breckenridge, says, " To offer 
sacrifice is the chief official business of the priests." p. 2S8. Hence, 
we learn that even in this enlightened land and 19th century, there 
are persons amongst us claiming the power of making sin offerings 
and expiating and forgiving sins !! 

We now resume the history of schisms in the succession : 

We last read you the contentions and havoc of human life on the 
succession of Damasus. The emperor at that time decided the con- 
troversy by banishing Ursinus, and on the decision of that emperor 
now rests the faith and salvation of the Roman church — themselves 
being judges. And yet, my learned opponent, in some of his speeches, 
affects to tell you that emperors have nothing to do, — no right to in- 
terfere in councils, or with church officers ; and here, and on numer- 
ous occasions, we find them filling Peter's chair, making vicars of 
Christ, and heads for his church !! 

We cannot rehearse all the schisms, and shall therefore give only 
a specimen. We take another instance of an imperial pope — one of 
an emperor's creation. 

"After the death of pope Zozimus, the church of Rome was divided about 
the election of his successor. The archdeacon Eulalius, who aspired to the 
bishopric of Rome, shut himself up in the church of the Lateran, with part of the 
people, some priests, and some deacons, and made them choose him in Zozimus' 
room. On the other side a great number of priests, several bishops, and part 
of the people, being assembled in the church of Theodora, elected Boniface. 
Both were ordained; Eulalius was ordained by some bishops, among whom was 
the bishop of Ostia, who used to ordain the bishop of Rome. Boniface was 
likewise ordained by a great number of bishops, and went to take possession of 
St. Peter's church. 

Symmachus, governor of Rome, having tried in vain to make them agree, writ 
to the emperor Honorius about it. In his letter of the 29th of December, 418, 
he speaks in Eulalius' behalf, and judges Boniface to be in the wrong. The 
emperor believing his relation, sent him word immediately that he should 
expel Boniface and uphold Eulalius. The governor having received this order, 
sent for Boniface to acquaint him with it, but he would not come to him, so that 
the governor sent to him to signify the emperor's order, and kept him from re- 
turning into the city. The bishops, priests, and the people that sided with 
Boniface, wrote immediately to the emperor to entreat him that he would order 
both Eulalius and Boniface to go to court, that their cause might there be 
judged. To satisfy them, the emperor sent to Symmachus an order of 30t.h of 
January, 419, signifying that he should enjoin Boniface and Eulalius to be at 
Ravenna about the 6th of February. Honorius convened some bishops thiih.r 
to judge of their cause; and that they might not be suspected of favoring any 
one side, he commanded that none of those who had oraained either of them, 
should be a judge in the case. The bishops that were chosen to judge this 
cause being divided, the emperor put off the judgment till May, and forbade 
Eulalius and Boniface to go to Rome; and sent thither A chillius, bishop of 
Spoleto, to perform the Episcopal functions during the Easier holydays : in 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 127 

which time he prepared a numerous synod, and invited the bishops both of Africa 
and Gaul; but Eulalius could not endure that delay, and spoiled his business 
by his impatience; for whether he distrusted his right, or wnether he was of a 
restless temper, he returned to Rome the 16th of March, and would have staid 
there notwithstanding the emperor's orders, which obliged Symmachus to use 
violence to drive him out of Rome; and the emperor having been informed of 
his disobedience, waited fjr no other judgment, but caused Bon[face to be put 
in posses-ion in the beginning of April, 419." — Bu Pin, vol. l. p. 417. 

The Holy Spirit, then, by the emperor Honorius, — an Arian, too, 
(if I recollect right,) establishes a vicar for Christ in the person of 
Boniface I. What, says bishop Purcell, have emperors to do with 
Christ's church? ! Once, then they had a great deal to do with it; 
and where is infallibility now 1 

Next comes pope Symmachus. Again the church's head is the 
fruit of bloodshed and war. 

"After the death of pope Anastasius, which happened at the end of the 
year 498, there was a fierce contention in the church of Rome between Lau- 
rentius and Symmachus, which of them two was duly promoted to that see. Sym- 
machus who was deacon, was chosen, and ordained by the far greater number; 
but Ftslus a Roman Senator, who had promised the Emperor Anastasius, that 
his edict of agreement with the bishop of Rome should be signed, procured 
Laurentius to be chosen and ordained. This schism divided the church and 
the citv of Rome, and the most eminent both of the clergy and the senate took 
part with one of these two bishops: but at length both parties agreed to 
wait upon King Theodoric at Ravenna for his decision in the case, which was 
this, That he should continue bishop of Rome, who had been first chosen, and 
should be found to have the far greater number of voices for him. Symmachus 
had the advantage of Laurentius on both these accounts, and so was confirmed in 
the possession of the holy see, and he ordained Laurentius bishop of JYocera, 
if we may believe Anastasius. At the beginning of the next year he called a 
council, wherein he made a canon against the ways of soliciting nuns' voices, 
which were then used for obtaining the papal dignity : but those who opposed the 
ordination of Symmachus, seeing him possessed of the holy see against their mind, 
used all their endeavours to turn him out of it, for which end they charged hira 
with many crimes, they stirred up a part of the people and senate against him, 
and caused a petition to be presented to king Theodoric, that he would appoint 
a delegate to hear the cause. He named Peter bishop of Aliinas, who deposed 
the pope from the government of his diocese, and deprived him of the possessions 
of the church. This division was the cause of so great disorders in Rome, that 
from words they came many times to blows, and every day produced fighting and 
murders: many ecclesiastics were beaten to death, virgins were robbed, and driven 
away from their habitation, many lay-men were wounded or killed, insomuch that 
not only the church, but also the city of Rome suffered very much by this schism. 

King Theodoric being desirous to put an end to these disorders, called a council; 
wherein the bishop being possessed with a good opinion of Pope Symachus, would 
not enter upon the examination of the particulars alleged against him, but only 
declared him innocent before his accusers, of the crimes that were laid to his 
charge : and they prevailed so far by their importunity, that the king was satisfied 
with this sentence, and both the people and the senate who had been very much 
irritated against Symmachus, were pacified, and acknowledged him for pope. Yet 
some of the discontented party still remained, who drew up a writing against the 
synod and spread their calumnies, forged against Symmachus, as far as the east. 
The emperor Anastasius objected them to him, which obliged Symmachus to write 
a letter to him for his own vindication; but notwithstanding these efforts of his 
enemies, he continued in possession of the holy see until the year 514 wherein 
he died." Du Pin. Vol. I. p. 527. 

If we cannot find Christ's church some where out of the Roman 
church at this time, we shall have a hard task to find her there ! 
Again, we shall read a few words concerning Eoniface II. 

"Boniface, the second of that name, the first pope of the nation of the Goths, was 
promoted to the holy see, under the reign of king Alaricus on the 14th day of Oc- 
tober, in the year 529. At the same time one part of the clergy chose Dioscorus 



128 DEBATE ON THE 

who was formerly one of the deputies sent into the east by Hormisdas. Boniface 
was ordained in the church of Julius, and Dioscorus in that of Constantine. But 
this last died the 12th day of November. Boniface seeing himself left in sole 
possession used his utmost endeavors to bring over those who had been of the 
other party : he threatened them with an anathema, and forced them to subscribe. 
He called together the clergy, and condemned the memory of Dioscorus. accusing 
him of simony. He proceeded yet further* and, as if it were not enough for him 
to be secured of the noly see for himself, he would also appoint himself a suc- 
cessor, and having called a synod, he engaged the bishops and clergy by oath, and 
under their hands, that they should choose and ordain in his room the deacon 
Vigilius after his death. This being against the canons, he himself acknowledged 
publicly his fault, and burned the writing which he extorted from them." Du Pin. 
Vol. I. p. 542. 

What an excellent head, truly, for the church of Christ ! 

We shall next see, that other women besides queen Elizabeth, 
whom my opponent denounces for being head of the English church, 
had something to do in pope manufacturing. — Pope Sylverius and 
pope Vigilius come next: 

"The deacon Vigilius remained at Constantinople after the death of Agapetus, 
who had for a longtime aspired to the bishopric, and made use of this occasion 
to get himself promoted to it. He promised the empress, that if she would 
make him pope he would receive Theodosius, Authimus, and Severus into his 
communion, and that he would approve their doctrine. The empress not only 
promised to make him pope, but also offered him money if he would do what 
she desired. Vigilius having given the empress all the assurances that she could 
wish, departed with a secret order addressed to Bellisarius to make him success- 
ful in his design. Vigilius being come into Italy, found all things well prepared 
for him, the siege of Rome was raised when he arrived there, but during the 
3iege Silverius was suspected to hold correspondence with the Goths, and so he 
was rendered odious for refusing expressly to accept the empress's proposals of 
receiving Authimus. Thus Vigilius having delivered to Bellisarius the order 
which he brought, and having promised him two hundred pieces of gold over 
and above the seven hundred which he was to give him, found no great difficulty 
to persuade him to drive away Silverius." 

***** 

u This was put in execution, he was delivered to the guards of Vigilius, and 
he was banished into the Isles of Pontienna and Panctataria, which were over 
against the mount Cirrellus, where he died of a famine in great misery, if we 
may believe Liberatus. Procopius, in his secret history, seems to insinuate, that 
he was killed by one named Eugenius, a man devoted to Antonina — the wife of 
Bellisarius: but what Procopius says, may be understood not of the death of 
Silverius, but rather of his accusation or apprehension." 
**** ***** * 

" Although Vigilius was promoted to the see of Rome, by a way altogether 
unjust, yet he continued in the possession of it after the death of Silverius, and 
was acknowledged for a lawful pope, without proceeding to a new election, or 
even confirming that which had been made. The conduct which he had observ- 
ed during this pontificate answered well enough to its unhappy beginning. He 
had at first approved the doctrines of Authimus, and that of the Acephali, to sat- 
isfy the empress: but the fear of being turned out by the people of Rome, whom 
he hated, made him quickly recall this approbation; yet he did not, by this, 
gain the hearts of the Romans. They could not endure an usurper, who having 
been the cause of the death of their lawful bishop, would abuse them also. They 
accused him also, of having killed his secretary with a blow of his fist, and of 
having whipped his" sister's son till he died. The empress who was not satis- 
fied with him because he had gone back from his word, sent Authimus to Rf rr.e 
with an order to bring him into Greece, and at his departure the people gave 
him all sorts of imprecations.'" lb. Vol. I. pag-e 552. 

We shall only at this time give the details of another column of 
the history of the popes in the work before us. It speaks for itself 
— tells how all the evil passions of human nature co-operated in the 
election and creation of Christ's vicars. 



EOMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 129 

Under head — " An account of the popes, and of the church of Rome, from the* 
time of Sylvester II. to Gregory VII. 'After his death there was a schism in 
the church of Rome, between Benedict VIII. son to Gregory, the count of 
Frescati, who was first elected by his father's interest; and one Gregory, who 
was elected by some Romans, who outed Benedict. He fled to Henry, king- of 
Germany, who immediately raised forces, and marched into Italy to re-establish 
him. As soon as the king" arrived, Gregory fled for it, and Benedict was re- 
ceived without any opposition. He conferred the imperial crown on that prince, 
and on queen Chunegonda his wife. Benedict died in the year 1034, and some 
authors say, that after his death he appeared mounted on a black horse, and that 
he showed the place where he had deposited a treasure, that so it might be dis- 
tributed to the poor, and that by these alms, and the prayers of St. Oclilo, he was 
delivered from the torments of the other life. We have only one Bull of his, 
in favor of the Abby of Cluny." 

44 The count of Frescati, that the popedom might be still in his family, caused 
his other son to be elected in the room of Benedict VIII. though he was not 
then in orders. He was ordained and called John, which, according to us, is the 
eighteenth of that name, but according to others the twentieth. 'Tis said, that 
some time after this pope being sensible that his election was vicious and simo- 
niacal, he withdrew into a monastery there to suffer penance, and that he forbore 
performing any part of his function, till such time as he was chosen again by the 
clergy." 

"John XVIII. dying Novr. 7, in the year 1033, Alberi count of Frescati, caus- 
ed his son to be seated on St. Peter's chair. He was nephew to the two last 
popes the count's brothers, and was not above eighteen years of age at the most. 
He changed his name of Thophylact into that of Benedict IX. 

Peter Darnien, speaks of him as a man that lived very disorderly, and was very 
unworthy of that dignity to which he bad been advanced by the tyranny of hjg 
father. However, he enjoyed the popedom very quietly for ten years together; 
but at last the Romans, weary of his abominable irregularities, outed him, and 
put up in his place, the bishop of St. Sabina, who took upon him the name of 
Sylvester III. He enjoyed his dignity but three months; for though Benedict 
voluntarily resigned the popedom, yet he returned to Rome, and with the assis- 
tance of Frescati's party, drove out his competitor, and re-assumed the papal 
chair. But being altogether uncapable of governing it, and having nothing more 
in his thoughts than the gratifying of his brutal appetite, he made a bargain about 
the popedom with John Gracian, archbishop of the church of Rome, and made 
it over to him for a sum of money, reserving to himself the revenues due from 
England to the holy see. This Gracian took upon him the name of Gregory VI. 
In the meantime, king Henry, who had succeeded his father, Conrad, in the year 
1039, being incensed against Benedict, who had sent the imperial crown to the 
king of Hungary, after he had defeated that prince, resolved to march into Italy 
to put an end to that schism. After he came thither he caused these three popes 
to be deposed in several synods as usurpers, simonists, and criminals. Benedict 
fled for it ; Gregory VI. was apprehended and afterwards banished; and Sylves- 
ter III. was sent back to his bishopric of St. Sabina. He caused Suidger, bishop 
of Hamberg, to be elected in their stead, who took upon him the name of Cle- 
ment II. and was acknowledged as lawful pope by all the world. He crowned 
Henry emperor, and as he was waiting upon him home to Germany, died beyond 
the Alps, October 7, in the year 1047, nine months after his election. Immedi- 
ately upon this, Benedict IX. returns to Rome, and a third time remounts the 
papal chair, which he held for eight months, notwithstanding the emperor had 
sent from Germany Poppo, bishop of Bresse, who was consecrated pope under the 
title of Damasus II. but he did not long enjoy that dignity, for he died of poison, 
as is supposed, at Palestrina, three and twenty days after his coronation." 

"It is no wonder that these popes have not left us the least monument of their 
pastoral vigilance, either in councils or by letters, since all their care and aim 
was how to gratify their ambition and the rest of their passions, without watch- 
ing over the flock of Jesus Christ." Dn Pin, vol. ii. p. 206. 

Observe, a single count has the controlling power of some three 
popes during this administration ; and may be said to have the church 
under his special management! Comment on such a narrative is un« 
necessary. — [Time expired.] 

17 



130 DEBATE ON THE 

Half-past 4 o'clock, i\ M. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

I should prefer replying to the last part of my friend's argument at 
once, but order requires that I should follow him through all his points. 

We were told the ' old Irish story' of St. Patrick sailing on a mill- 
stone. Well, the Irish have always been remarkable for telling a good 
story; but this is told for them, and it is not even witty, much less has 
it any bearing on the argument. There is not, I presume, one educated 
Catholic in the world who believes a tale so ridiculous. For my own 
part, I had never even heard it before ; but I have heard of a life of St. 
Patrick and St. Bridget, written by some young Protestant wag who gath- 
ered together all the absurd stories he could find and gave them this name. 
My friend must have felt the want of better arguments when he intro- 
duced such a silly tale, at this debate, for the purpose of weakening 
the authority of the most sacred documents. I will not call this pro- 
fane, but I must say, that, in my opinion, it is indecorous. 

I have been charged with exciting the laughter of this audience, at 
the expense of my friend; this is not my fault; what alternative but 
ridicule for the story we have just heard] It was thus that E lias 
mocked the false priests of Baal, by saying, " Cry louder on your 
god — perad venture he sleepeth and must be awaked." iii. Kings 
15, 27. 

Admit my learned opponent's reasoning, and you cannot be sure that 
ever there was such a man as Peter : admit it, and you cannot pre- 
tend to say that you have had grandfathers or grandmothers, or at least 
that they had had any themselves : you have never seen them ; how then 
can you be sure they ever existed ! Sometimes forged notes get into 
circulation; conclude with my friend, that you may as well part com- 
pany at once with the genuine notes you may possess, for you can no 
longer prove them to, any man's satisfaction, to be worth having. I 
will go still farther: admit Mr. C.'s curious reasoning, and you can 
never be sure that such a personage as Jesus Christ ever existed, much 
less that he wrought miracles to prove the divinity of his mission ! 
You did not see the miracles ; the book that records them was written 
long after they occurred ; arid many of the most important portions of 
this very book were doubted of for upwards of 300 years after Christ, 
even by Luther himself, in the enlightened 16th century ! His author, 
DuPin, says there were abundance of false gospels, false epistles, false 
acts, in the early ages. How then, according to his principles, can we 
be sure of the authenticity of a single book of the Old or New Testament, 
seeing we have no voucher for the truth but the testimony of men? 
Here are chasms to be bridged, and links in the chain of scriptural 
testimony, to be welded, for full 300 years, ay 1600 years, before the 
various books of scripture were collected together : and when they 
were collected, this collection was made by men, who, he says, were 
liable to be mistaken like ourselves ; and who knows to this day but 
they were mistaken ! Such are the horrid consequences of his illogi- 
cal reasoning — another sad illustration that, for tne deserter from the 
Catholic church, there is no resource but to deny every thing, to be- 
come a deist. I would advise my friend, when he goes back to Bethany, 
to prove in the Harbinger that such a thing as the present controversy 
never occurred. I am sure that he can make some people believe, all 
editorials to the contrary notwithstanding, that it is all a hoax. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 131 

He gratuitously mixes up the names of the first five or six popes, in 
a way unknown to antiquity, whereas Eusebius, Optatus, Tertullian, 
and Irenaeus, agree perfectly in the enumeration of Peter, Linus, Anacle- 
tus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander — and two of these authors have 
been translated by Protestants ! The mixture of the books of scrip- 
ture is for him a far more insurmountable difficulty. There was much 
disputing for hundreds of years as to the time and place where the 
epistles and gospels were written ; must we, therefore, reject them 
altogether] According to his rule of reasoning, we should reject 
them ; but, thank God, Catholics admit no such rule. A few discre- 
pancies about the minor points, where there is perfect unanimity as to 
the substance, only confirm our conviction of the historian's good faith. 
And there is as much indisputable testimony of the succession in the 
chair of Peter, as there is to prove any book of scripture whatsoever. I 
might, in fact, say there is more. I have already nailed Dupin to the 
counter; he leans on a broken reed. He quotes St. Paul, to prove that 
neither he nor Peter founded the church of Rome, whereas St. Paul 
says no such thing, but only that they should not indulge in foolish 
disputes about the ministers who had preached to them the word of 
life, "I am for Paul, I am for Apollos," but give all glory to Christ 
who died for them. There were christians at Rome before St. Peter 
or St. Paul went thither. The Roman soldiers who saw Christ cruci- 
fied, and witnessed the prodigies attending his death, were, doubtless, 
many of them, as well as the centurion who smote his breast, and cried 
out "truly this man was the Son of God," converted to Christianity; 
who, when they returned home to Rome, related what they had seen, 
to their countrymen, and made others converts. The apostles, after- 
wards, went to Rome and founded the see. So it was in England. Long 
before Gregory sent St. Augustin to that country, there were Catholics 
there — even in the days of pope Eleutherius. 

What was the use of quoting Waddington as an author of infallible 
weight with mel He could not avoid making splendid acknowledg- 
ments to the church of Rome. The truth was too strong for him. But 
if we believe a man when he testifies against himself, is that any rea- 
son we should believe him when he testifies/br himself? In fact, the 
inexplicable confusion of which Waddington speaks, is not to be found 
in any of the historians I have named and whose works I have exhi- 
bited — from which too 1 have read to this assembly. If any confusion 
exist, it is with respect to the time when each succeeded each, al- 
though in this respect the earliest historians agree, as you have seen. 
Linus, Cletus, (or Anencletus,) and Clement, are all spoken of in the 
epistles of St. Paul. They held a conspicuous rank in the church ; 
their names and services in these high places were often seen, and 
hence could have occurred a mixture of their names and of the dates 
of their pontificates, among now remote historians. But in every case 
of doubt as to scripture, or ecclesiastical history, the tests of sound 
criticism must be applied, and then the sibyls and the Mercurius Tris- 
megistus are sure to go overboard. " Opinionum commenta delet dies" 
says Cicero, "naturae judicia confirmat" Time exposes falsehood — 
and confirms truth. What Cicero says time does, a more respectable 
agent, the church, has achieved — she has selected the genuine books 
of scripture and stamped forgery upon such as were spurious. Had 
she not done this where would have been the Bible 1 There are other 



132 DEBATE ON THE 

ways of detecting error — Du Pin has told you of them. "A third class," 
says he, "forge for their diversion." You have all heard of the late 
prodigious humbug at Exeter Hall, England. The king suppresses the 
Orange lodges. The bigots of the nation rally. They invite a general 
convention of their brother bigots throughout the empire; a champion, 
it was the notorious Dr. McGhee, is invited from Ireland. He pro- 
fesses to have discovered a document penned by the reigning pontiff, 
and addressed to the clergy of England and Ireland, that recommended 
all the crimes that could be thought of to be committed against the 
Protestants. The crowd is gathered. The conquering hero comes. The 
air is vexed with the cries of " down with the Catholics," — " long 
life to McGhee !" He opens his mouth, but he cannot speak. His emo- 
tions overpower him — some broken accents — the title of the document 
is heard. ** Simpleton," says a tremulous voice from the crowd, "the 
Rev. Mr. Todd, of Trinity college, Dublin, forged and published that 
document for his own diversion and that of his friends, just to see how 
he could imitate the pope's Latin, but never dreaming that any man 
of sense could believe that he intended to impose it on the world as a 
genuine production of the pope !" McGhee was thunderstruck — the 
meeting horrified, and one by one they slunk away to their homes, 
muttering benedictions upon Irish bull-makers! This was diverting; 
but the consequences of such diversions were not always as harmless 
to the poor Catholics ; in fact they had frequently cost them torrents 
of blood. The celebrated Dr. Parr, Dr. Johnson, Nix, Whittaker, all 
agree that the Catholic is the most calumniated society on earth. 

My friend should know that the Latin translation of Irenaeus is good 
authority, according to the soundest rules of criticism. It was made 
ih the lifetime of Irenaeus, who wrote the preface to it himself; by 
birth a Greek, he was bishop of a Latin see, (Lyons,) and he says 
he hopes the reader will excuse the roughness of his style, for he had 
been so long among the Celtae that he had lost the purity of his native 
tongue. His proximity to the apostles is proof of the clearness of 
the testimony in his day. Polycarp was converted in the year 80—- 
and St. John lived to the close of the first century — so that John 
taught Polycarp, and Polycarp taught Irenaeus. We all know why 
Jacob (supplanter,) Sara (Lady,) Isaac, (laughter,) Peter, (a rock,) 
were so called — was there a reason for the giving of these names to 
all but Peter] The reason my friend alleges is not it ; Peter was not 
the first convert, it was his brother brought him to Christ. John i. 
41, 42. The word head is figurative; this remark cuts up the web 
of sophistry my friend has spun around it. The pope is Peter's suc- 
cessor without being all and every thing that Peter was, without being 
a fisherman, a swordsman, a man of impulsiveness, a martyr. He 
succeeds to all the power necessary to guide the church. The other 
apostles were infallible, as my friend admits, and yet their successors 
claim not to be so, individually ; it is enough for every purpose of 
good government that they are so when they abide in the doctrine of the 
entire church. Liberius never erred in faith; and Du Pin himself is 
proof of his orthodoxy. He defended the faithful Athanasius against 
Constantius and the Arians his accusers! And yet Mr. C. would 
have us believe Liberius an Arian ! He preferred, he said, to go into 
exile rather than break the ecclesiastical laws against his own consci- 
ence. Is not this one of the most heroic sayings recorded of popes ? 
The formula he signed in exile atPerea, in Thrace, was not heretical. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 133 

but when this act was abused by the Arians, Liberius wept bitterly 
for the violent interpretation the document was made to bear. The 
clergy of Rome appreciated the pontiff's magnanimity, they had no 
doubt of his faith; they would have no other pope — Felix, the crea- 
ture of the emperor Constantius, they justly despised ; and, as in 
every similar instance, the righteous cause prevailed ; God was 
stronger than the emperor, truth than error, So did the synod ap- 
prove Damasus, and reject his rival. 

Tertullian was quoted about the Eucharist, and prayers for the 
dead ; I will show you how his testimony is in our favor. Talking 
of Corinth, Ephesus, and other cities, he says to the inquirer, if you 
want to find the established doctrine and live near Corinth, go to 
Corinth to find it out; if near Ephesus, to Ephesus; if near to Rome, 
go to Rome, and so on. This only proves that the doctrine at all 
these places was exactly the same; but what is the argument] Does 
it prove that all these churches were equal in authority to Rome 1 
Suppose a man in New York writes to me to know what the Catholic 
doctrine in any point is — I tell him he must apply to the bishop or 
clergy of the churches of New York for information. Does it follow 
from this that I question the preeminent authority of Rome 1 Does it 
prove any thing whatever 1 It is so far in our favor that it proves a 
uniformity of doctrine— -like the unity of that light which proceeds 
from a common fountain. 

Mr. C. is stricken with the authority of Peter — it haunts him like 
a spectre throughout this discussion — it meets him at every turn and 
corner of his argument, — well ! The Greek word noiuzv* means rule, 
guide, govern, as well as " feed." See Homer, passim. " nd/xevi hzou" 
was the epithet applied usually to Agamemnon. Feed my lambs means 
all the flock, with the subordinate pastors spread over the universal fold. 
The evangelist takes care to tell us, in the parable of the temple, that 
he spoke <f the temple of his body. He explained, as St. John says, more 
than all the books of the whole world could contain, to his disciples, 
during the forty days from his resurrection to his ascension, spent, as 
the scripture assures us, in speaking to them of the kingdom of God, 
as he every where called his church. Mr. C. says there is no priest 
since Christ. I grant it, in the sense that the high priest holds the 
place of Christ, derives his power from Christ. In this sense Christ 
employs the priest as his agent, and exercises by him his own priest- 
hood, in which God the Father hath (Ps. 109) confirmed him by an oath 
for ever. But in the sense that no such priest now exists, I cannot agree 
with the gentleman, for St. Paul says, thirty years after Christ's ascen- 
sion, "For every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men, 
in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacri- 
fices for sin. Who can have compassion oa them that are ignorant 
and err, because he himself also is compassed with infirmity, and 
therefore he ought, as for the people so also for himself, to offer for 
sins ; neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is 
called by God as Aaron was." Heb. ch. 5, v. 1, 2, 3, 4. Dees not 
all this prove a priesthood distinct from the body of christians, thirty 
years after Christ, as it exists at present ] Does not St. Paul say, 
we have an altar of which they cannot partake who serve the taber- 
nacle 1 Heb. vi. 13, 10. And what was that altar for but for the sacri- 
fices which the priests were taken from among men to offer 1 — [Time 
expired.] 
M 



134 DEBATE ON THE 



TUESDAY, January 17th, Half-past 9 o'clock, A. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises— 

I intend if possible, to sum up this argument on my second propo- 
sition this forenoon. I could wish that my friend, the bishop would 
reply to me instead of anticipating propositions in advance, and of 
reading or speaking of matters which are wholly irrelevant. He is 
even now occasionally on my first proposition ; anon, on the second ; 
and instantly, on subjects which we have not agreed to debate. He 
talks about my getting into thickets and circuitous labyrinths, with- 
out seeming to perceive that I am in pursuit of him. He makes pro- 
positions and assertions for me which I never uttered, and spends his 
time in descanting upon his own misapprehensions.* 

I must however, intimate to him and my audience, my purpose of 
ceasing to respond to any thing he may introduce not in reply to my 
speeches. If I must lead the way ; he must follow. I cannot be de- 
coyed into all the minor and remote points he may originate. I must 
go on to sustain my propositions, whether he respond to them or not ; 
and shall appropriate half an hour occasionally to such matters in his 
speeches as may call for my notice. 

I cannot, therefore debate the priesthood, or any foreign topic. But 
as the gentleman has again reiterated the charge, "feed my sheep" 
and seems to make the whole merits of the question depend on the 
meaning of the word sheep ; I will once more, and I think only once 
more advert to it. It is universally admitted by Protestants and Cath- 
olics, that it is the duty of pastors to feed the flock of their charge. 
If there be a common duty in the ministry of the old and new law, it 
is this. But it is essential to his argument to make the word x\»i>os sig- 
nifying sheep denote clergy. This is an extraordinar}^ assumption. 
It would be a waste of time to argue against it. But that you may 
see its absurdity, I will read from the Catholic version a part of the 
10th chap, of John, substituting the bishop's definition for the term. 

" He that entereth not by the door into the fold of the clergy, but clirab- 
eth up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth by the 
door, is the pastor of the clergy. To this man the porter openeth, and the cler~ 
gy hear his voice; and he calleth his own clergy by name, and leadeth them forth. 
And when he hath let forth his own clergy, he goeth before them, and the 
clergy follow him, because they know his voice. I am the door of the clergy. 
And how many soever have come are thieves and robbers, but the clergy heard 
them not. 

11th verse. I am the good pastor. The good pastor giveth his life for his 
clergy. But the hireling and he that is not the pastor, whose own the clergy 
are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the clergy and fleeth; and the wolf 
raveneth and disperseth the clergy. And the hireling fleeth because he is a 
hireling; and he hath no care of the clergy. I am the good pastor, and I know 
mine, and mine know me. As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; 
and 1 yield my life for my clergy. And other clergy I have that are not of this fold." 

I submit this without comment to the good sense of my audience. 

The gentleman may find it more to his account, or he is more ac- 
customed to speak to the prejudices of that part of the community 

* The other day the bishop asserted that / affirmed, the apostles wrote only to 
Greek cities.'* Tnis is not found in my speeches ; for it is so gross an error that 
I could not have uttered it, even in a dream. I request the reader to examine 
my speeches for my own assertions; for he will frequently find the bishop in- 
stead of meeting his opponent, demolishing men of straw of his own creation. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 135 

who rely on the authority of the Roman church without asking ques- 
tions, who are told not to think or reason for themselves ; but to be- 
lieve in the church — to them he may hold up his map triumphantly. 
The face of Tertullian or Irenaeus on paper is as good to them as ten 
arguments. But I speak to Protestants as well as Catholics; and, 
therefore, I must reason, for they are a reasoning population. I ex- 
pect them to decide by evidence, and not by authority. 

Reference has been made to Waddington, on the papal succession. 
His words were not correctly quoted by the gentleman. His interpre- 
tation is rather an evasion of the question. It is to the succession it- 
self he alludes. He cannot make it out : he acknowledges he can- 
not ; nor can any living man. 

To resume the history of the schisms. I will read a few extracts 
that I have marked in a chronological table of the popes, which will 
exhibit a bird's eye glance of the fortunes of the Roman see, for lit- 
tle more than a single century. 

1261. Alexander IV. dies June 24. The holy see vacant 3 months and 3 days. 
The cardinals who proceeded to the election, not being able to pitch on one 
among themselves, chose Francis, patriarch of Jerusalem, who takes upon 
him the name of Urban IV. and is consecrated Sept. 4. 
1265. After a vacancy of four months, cardinal Guy, the Gross, born in Provence, 
is elected pope, Feb. 5, and consecrated March 18, under the name of Cle- 
ment IV. 
1268. Clement IV. dies Oct. 29. The holy see lies vacant for two years, nine 

months, and two days. 
1271. The cardinals after a long debate on Sept. 1, byway of compromisal 
elected Thibald, arch deacon of Liege, native of Placenzia, who was then at 
Ptolemais. 

1276. Gregory X. dies Jan. 10. Peter of Tarentaise, cardinal bishop of Ostia, is 
elected the 21st. under the name of Innocent V. After his death, which 
happened June the 2d. cardinal Ottobon, a Genoese, is elected in his place, 
July the 12th, and takes upon him the name of Adrian V. He dies at Viter- 
bo, Au£. 18. without having been consecrated. Twenty-five days after, 
cardinal John Peter, the son of Julian, a Portuguese, is elected and consecra- 
ted, Sept. 15, under the name of John XXI. 

1277. John XXI. is crushed by the fall of the ceiling of the palace of Viterbo, 
and dies May the 20th. Nov. 25, John Cojestan is elected, and takes the 
name of Nicholas III. and consecrated Dec. 26. 

1280. Nicholas dies Aug. 22. The holy see is vacant six months. 

1287. Honorius IV. dies on April 5. The holy see vacant till April of the next 

year. 
1292. Nicholas dies on April 4. The holy see vacant two years three months 

and two days. 

1304. The death of Benedict July 8. The holy see remained vacant till the 
next year. 

1305. Clement V. is chosen pope June 5. He is crowned at Lyons Nov. 11, 
and resides in France. 

1328. Lewis of Bavaria causes Michael Corbario to be chosen anti-pope, who 
takes the name of Nicholas V. and is enthroned May 12. He was driven 
out of Rome, Aug. 4. 

1378. Gregory XL died March 27th. The cardinals entered the conclave at 
Rome, April 7th. The Romans required a Roman or an Italian pope. The 
arch-bishop of Paris is chosen in a tumultuous manner, April 9th, and crowned 
the 17th. under the name of Urban VI. The cardinals fly into Anagnia in 
May, and protest against the election of Urban. They came to Rondi 
August the 27th, enter the conclave, and chose, September 20th, the cardi- 
nal of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII. which caused a schism 
in the church. 

1379. Clement VIII. flies to Naples, and from thence goes to Avignon, where 
he arrived June 10. The competitors for the papacy condemn one another. 
Du Pin. — Vol. ii. 



136 DEBATE ON THE 

Touching all that the gentleman has said or may say of the authen- 
ticity of Du Pin, I observe that the reporters have recorded my de- 
fence of his reutpation. They will also have stated the fact that I 
only quote him as authentic on such matters as all other historians tes- 
tify. I will not then repeat the same defence again and again. 

I know, indeed, that what is authentic with Jansenists may be he- 
terodox with Jesuits, and vice versa. When the Romanists are 
hard pressed, they have no English authentic historians. And when 
we quote a Latin one, we are sure to err in the translation. Bellar- 
mine is repudiated by one party ; even Barronius is sometimes disal- 
lowed. Still being in Latin, he is more authentic than any other. 
We shall therefore take from him a few words in confirmation of what 
we read from the Decretals of Du Pin. Barronius, vol. vi. p. 562, A. D. 
498, tells us that the emperor's faction sustained the election of Lauren- 
tius to the papacy. In this struggle " murders, robberies and numberless 
evils, were perpetrated at Rome." Nay such were the horrible scenes 
that, says Barronius, " there was a risk of their destroying the whole 
city." In the schism between popes Sylverius and Vigilius in the 
sixth century, the latter, though an atrociously wicked man, " impli- 
cated," says Barronius, " in so many crimes" that all virtuous men 
opposed him, was raised to the papal chair. Yet this man was pro- 
nounced a good pope. Barronius says he is not to be despised though 
a bad man. Let every man recollect, "says he, that even to the sha- 
dow of Peter, immense virtue was given of God!" (Bar. vol. vii. 
p. 420.) 

'In the midst of contentions which rent the Roman Catholic church, 
pope Pelagius I. was chosen. This pope approved the council which 
pope Vigilius had condemned. This increased the flames of eccle- 
siastical war to such a degree that the pope could not find a bishop of 
Rome, who could consecrate him ; and he was constrained to beg a 
bishop of Ostium to do this service; "a thing," says Barronius, "which 
never had occurred before." (Vol. vii. p. 475.) 

The popes Formosus and Stephen lived in the ninth century. The 
latter, says Barronius, was so wicked, that he would not have dared 
to enroll him in the list of popes, were it not that antiquity gives his 
name. In the exercise of papal infallibility, he not only rescinded 
the acts and decrees of his infallible predecessor Formosus; but collec- 
ting a council of cardinals and bishops as bad as himself, he actually 
had the old pope taken out of his grave ; and he brought him into 
court, tried, and condemned him ; cut off three of his fingers ; and 
plunged his remains into the Tiber. See Platina's life of Stephen 
VI. and Barronius do.' 

'Barronius under the year 1004, names three rival popes, who per- 
petrated the most shameful crimes, and bartered the papacy, and sold 
it for gold. He, though a Roman Catholic writer, calls them Cerber- 
us, the three headed beast which had issued from the gates of 
hell !' 

Hear his words in his life of pope Stephen VII. A. D. 900. ' The 
case is such, that scarcely any one can believe it, unless he sees it 
with his eyes, and handles it with his hands, viz. what unworthy, 
vile, unsightly, yea, execrable and hateful things the sacred apostolic 
see, on whose hinges the universal apostolical church turns, has been 
compelled to see, &c.' 

' Genbrard in his chronicles, under the year 904 says, " for nearly 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 157 

150 years, about fifty popes deserted wholly the virtue of their predeces- 
sors, being apostate rather than apostolical V 

'And to crown the climax, Barronius, under the year 912 adds: 
" What is then the face of the holy Roman church ! How exceed- 
ingly foul it is ! When most potent, sordid and abandoned women, 
(Meretices,) ruled at Rome : at whose will the sees were changed ; 
bishops were presented ; and what is horrid to hear, and unutterable, 
False Pontiffs, the paramours of these women, were intruded into 
the chair of St. Peter, &c." He adds, — " For who can affirm that 
men illegally intruded by bad women, (scortis) were Roman pontiffs !" 
Again : " The canons were closed in silence ; the decrees of pontiffs 
were suppressed : the ancient traditions were proscribed ; and the sa- 
cred ceremonies and usages of former days were wholly extinct. 
See his Annals A. D. 912.'* 

Again : he relates that pope Alexander was elected by cardinals, 
some of whom were bribed, some allured by promises of promotion, 
and some enticed by fellowship in his vices and impurities to give 
him their suffrages. He refers to various authors who complained 
that he was famous for his debauchery ; he tells us of his vile exam- 
ple in keeping a Roman strumpet Vanozia, by whom he had many 
children ; that he conferred wealth and honors on them, and even cre- 
ated one of them, Caesar Borgia (an inordinately wicked man) arch- 
bishop of the church. Vid. Bar. Annals, vol. xix. p. 413 et seq. 

4 The same writer (vol. ix. p. 145) records the election of Bene- 
dict IX. at the age of twelve years, which he says was accom- 
plished by gold, and he calls it ("horrendum ac detestabile visu") 
" horrible and detestable to behold ;" and yet he adds that the whole 
christian world acknowledged Benedict, without controversy, to be a 
true pope ! 

Stephen vii. The unparalleled wickedness of this pope is conveyed in a sin- 
gle line : [Tfa quidem passusfacinorus homo quique utfur et latro ingressus est 
in ovile ovium, laqueo vitam adeo infami exitu vindice Deo clausit.~\ " Thus per- 
ished this villanous man, who entered the sheepfold as a thief and a robber; and 
who in the retribution of God, ended his days by the infamous death of the hal- 
ter." (Bar. vol. x. p. 742.) 

Again, Barronius says of the 10th century : 

" What then was the face of the Roman church ? How very filthy, when the 
most powerful and sordid harlots then ruled at Rome, at whose pleasure sees 
were changed and bishoprics were given, and — which is horrible to hear, and 
most abominable — their gallants were obtruded into the see of Peter, and made 
false popes; for who can say they could be lawful popes, who were intruded by 
such harlots without law ? There was no mention of the election or consent 
of clergy; the canons were silent, the decrees of popes suppressed, the ancient 
traditions proscribed, — lust armed with the secular power, challenged all 
things to itself. 

What kind of Cardinals, do you imagine must then be chosen by those mon- 
sters, when nothing is so natural as for like to beget like 1 who can doubt, but they 
in all things did consent to those that chose them ? Who will not easily believe 
that they animated them and followed their footsteps 1 Who understands not, 
that such men must wish that our Lord would have slept continually, and never 
have awoke to judgment to take cognizance of, and punish their iniquities." Ann. 
Vol. x. 912. 

Now if the gentleman objects to any of these quotations which 1 
have hastily, but I believe most correctly made : the originals are 

* Brownlee's Letters on Rom. Cath. controversy, pp. 36, 37,38. 

m2 18 



138 DEBATE ON THE 

here and let them be examined : For, these being admitted it is use- 
less to object to Du Pin, who never uses so severe language against 
the popes as Baronius and Genebrand, Platina and others. 

Finally on this subject. For seventy years, there was no pope in 
Rome, besides all the other interregnums. The pope resided at Avig- 
non in France and left St. Peter's chair empty. For almost half a 
century there were two popes, and two lines of popes existing at one 
time — one reigning in Italy, and one in France. And at last there 
were three popes — Benedict XIII. the Spanish pope, Gregory XII. the 
French pope, and John XXIII. the Italian pope. Then the council of 
Constance met — A. D. 1414, and made a fourth, or true pope, and depos- 
ed the three anti-popes. Such was the 29th schism in the papacy ! Is 
there, — may I not ask with all these facts before us, — Is there any 
man on earth that can have the least confidence in any pope as the 
successor of Peter ] A thousand questions the most learned and in- 
tricate, which no living bishop has time or means to examine, must 
be decided before he could rationally or religiously believe that the 
succession from Peter has any existence at all : or, in truth, it cannot 
be believed but upon mere authority ! 

We now proceed to show that there has been no fixed and uniform 
method of electing the popes. Indeed history and tradition furnish 
us with no less than seven different methods. 

1. Irenaeus says, ' that tradition said, that Peter appointed his suc- 
cessor.' And if he did, why do not all the popes follow his exam- 
ple 1 for Irenaeus is as good authority for this, as for that concerning 
the founding of the church of Rome. 

2. The priests and people are said to have often elected the first 
popes ; or, rather the bishops nominated and the people elected. — I 
ought to have observed distinctly, that there is as much sophistry in 
the word pope as ever was played off on earth. The word pope, in 
the east was first applied to all bishops, and is so used in Russia to 
this day. It was in the 5th century applied to the senior bishops and 
metropolitans of the west. But it was not until the time of Gregory 
VII. that it was exclusively appropriated by his own innovation, to the 
bishops of Rome* 

Hence, in this variety of acceptation, popes many were always in 
the church, and were elected by the people. But the persons first 
called popes and those now wearing the title, have no other resem- 
blance than the common name. 

3. The emperors nominated and bishops elected, and the emperors 
appointed on their own responsibility. 

4. Leo VIII. transferred the whole power of choosing the pope to 
the emperor, being tired with the inconstancy of the Romans. 

5. Barronius in his Annals, 112, 8, and sect. 141, 1, says, 'They 
(the popes) were introduced by powerful men and women. It xvcts 
frequently the price of prostitution /' 

6. By the decree of pope Nicholas II. in his Lseteran Synod : ■ The 
whole business was given over to the cardinals, an order of men, not 
heard of for 1000 years after Christ. The popes now make the 
cardinals, and the cardinals make the pope. What a glorious repub- 
lic ! N My friend, a staunch republican, agrees that a few men in 
Rome should elect a head for the universal church ! But sometimes — 

7. General councils (as that of Constance, Pisa and Basil) took 
uoon themselves the making of popes, and, as we have seen, made a 



KOMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 139 

fourth pope, when there were already three acknowledged by different 
parts of the church. Can these facts be denied 1 They cannot and 
I presume, will not. 

It is now affirmed that the intrigues of papal elections incompara- 
bly surpass the intrigues of any court on earth. The politics of 
France, of Italy, of Austria, are so incorporated with the schemes of 
the cardinals, or so. bias or bribe them, that on the election of a pope, 
it is usually said, " Austria has succeeded" or " Spain," or " France 
has prevailed this time !" In one word, the papal chair is the most 
corrupt and corrupting institution, that ever stood on earth. The Ro- 
man Cesars, or the Egyptian dynasties, were pure and incorrupt, com- 
pared with this mammoth scheme of iniquity. On the whole premi- 
ses, I ask, would the head of the church so jeopardize all the interests 
of his kingdom as to make the popes of Rome, or faith in them es- 
sential elements of his system of redemption, or necessary to the sal- 
vation of any human being] ! — 

To recapitulate. — This being a fundamental and primary essential 
element of the Roman church, I have labored it more than any other ; 
and yet I have not said a tithe of what may be said, or even what I 
have to say on the subject. But I have aimed at establishing four points 
in demonstrating this proposition. And to adopt the positive and 
dogmatic style of my learned opponent, may I not say that / have 
fully proved — 

1. That the office of pope, or supreme head on earth, has no scrip- 
ture warrant or authority whatever. Indeed, that the whole beau ideal 
of a church of nations, with a monarchical head, (which, in the es- 
timation of the bishop, is equivalent to the word church of Christ.) is as 
gratuitous an assumption as ever graced a romance, ancient or modern. — 

2. That it cannot be ascertained that Peter was ever bishop of Rome 
— nay, indeed, it has been shown, that it is wholly contrary to the 
New Testament history, and incompatible with his office. — 

3. That Christ gave no law of succession. — 

4. That if he h^d, that succession has been destroyed by a long 
continuance of the greatest monsters of crime that ever lived ; and by 
cabals, intrigues, violence, envy, lust, and schisms, so that no man can 
believe that one drop of apostolic grace is either in the person or office 
of Gregory XVI. the present nominal incumbent of Peter's chair! 
It would be now as easy to prove that Solomon's mosque built by the 
Turks, is Solomon's temple, in which Jesus Christ stood; as that the 
popes or church of Rome is a christian institution. 

On what, now, rests Roman Catholicism 1 ! If the foundation be 
destroyed, how can the building stand ] I need not tell my opponent 
that this is a blow at the root of his apostolic tree. He feels it, and 
I am glad to think that if any American bishop can sustain these pre- 
tensions, my learned opponent is that man. He has asked, and he 
may again ask, where was the Protestant church before Luther's time? 
In reply, I ask, where was the pope before Constantine's time] 
He brought Mosheim to offset Waddington and Jones on the subject 
of the Novatians. And what did Mosheim prove contrary to these 
historians] You have heard with what success my opponent seeks 
to tarnish the reputation of Novatians, Waldenses and Protestants. 
As a general offset to all his declamation on this subject, I will give 
you the testimony of a good Roman Catholic : for he was an Inquisitor 
— I mean Rienerius Saccho, one of the most inveterate enemies of 



140 



DEBATE ON THE 



these old fashioned Protestants. I have the original before me, but 
shall not read it unless it be required : The translation reads : 

" Among- all the sects" (there were sects, you perceive, before the Reforma- 
tion) " which still are, or have been, there is not one more pernicious to the church 
■jthan that of the Leonites;" (a name by which the Waldenses were sometimes 
called,) " and that for three reasons. The 1st is, because it is the oldest, for 
some say it hath existed from the time of pope Sylvester; others from the time 
of the Apostles. The 2nd, because it is more general, for there is scarce any 
country where this sect is not. The 3rd, because when all others sects beget 
horror by their blasphemies against God, this of the Leoni+es hath a great show 
of piety because they live justly before men, and believe all things rightly con- 
cerning God and all the articles contained in the creed. Only they blas- 
phemed the church of Rome." Rein. Sanho. edit. Grilzer, O. S. J. cap. 4. 
page 54. 

I could give much more Roman Catholic testimony in proof that the 
doctrines of Protestantism continued from the days of the first Roman 
schism till now : but this at present would seem superfluous. Nor 
will I speak now of the old English and Irish churches which the 
Roman bishops sought in vain for many centuries to bring into their 
fold. There is nothing betrays a less discriminating regard to the 
facts of ecclesiastical history, than to ask where was the church be- 
fore the days of Luther] — Bat I hasten to the point yet before me, 
which, like some others, I may not remember, was reserved for a more 
convenient season. It was an objection drawn in part from Eph. iv. 
11, and from the alleged difficulty of obtaining a ministry but 
through the popes of Rome. 

This passage, viewed in common with Matth. xxviii. 18, 19, seems to 
me, rather to remove all difficulty on the subject. Matth. xxviii. gives 
all authority to the apostles to set up the christian church, and pro- 
mises them miraculous aid, till the work was done. " I am with you 
continually till the conclusion of this state — hes ms <rvvTixei*; tov ctiZvos-, Of 
which I must here speak more particularly. At present it suffices to 
repeat the fact of such a commission, and such a promise to the 
apostles. 

Now let us hear Paul. When Christ ascended, " he gave gifts to 
men." — What, let me ask, were they 1 " He gave apostles, prophets, 
evangelists, pastors, and teachers" — all miraculously endowed. They 
were not raised up, out of the church ; but given directly from heaven 
to the church, or for building a church ! W^hat, again, let me ask 
Paul, were they given for] "For the perfecting of the saints:" or, 
according to the Douay bible, "for the consummation of the saints 
unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ." 
And for how long, let me ask, still more empnatically 1 " Until" (it 
is Mi%$i in Greek, donee in Latin, adverbs expressive of the time how 
long) " Until we all come into the unity of the faith and knowledge 
of the Son of God, to a perfect man" (not men — that is, to a perfect 
body) " into the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ." — The 
Roman church being judge, then, these officers were given to the church 
after the ascension, for a special work, and for a limited time. — Till, 
out of Jews and Gentiles, they had made one perfect man, or church. 
Now, these apostles acted in exact accordance with the nature of 
the case. They preached, baptized, and congregated disciples, in 
particular places. These disciples had, from the nature of the case, 
to receive from them the whole christian institution. They knew 
neither what to believe or do, but as they were taught by these in- 
spired men. — Hence, the apostles preached, baptized, taught, served 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 141 

tables, and dispensed all ordinances, and performed all offices among 
them, till the body of the church had learned its duty. Then they 
taught them to select from among themselves certain officers — gave 
them the qualifications, and showed them in their own persons how 
they were to be set apart and ordained to these offices. — For example, 
the deacons, or public servants of the church of Jerusalem, the mother 
church. Again, they taught them to send out missionaries or evan- 
gelists, as in the church of Antioch ; and finally, to ordain elders or 
bishops over the flock, as soon as they had persons qualified for that 
office. — They taught the church, then, to have bishops and deacons, 
and evangelists (or general missionaries, as the case may be). They 
gave the law, the qualifications, and the mode of inducting them into 
office. They never taught any one church to depend always upon 
Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Rome, or Corinth; but they taught the ne- 
cessity of all these offices — gave the qualifications of the officers, and 
assisted in ordaining them in many particular congregations, of which 
congregations with the same laws, authority, and order, there never 
have been wanting thousands from that day till now. 

Order has its foundation in nature. The highest officers were call- 
ed seniors or elders ; because of their age ; and bishops or, overseers, 
because of their office. Deacons, not having so much authority and 
glory, and not having a salary, like bishops, there never has been 
among them any controversy about succession ! But had there been 
any great honor or reward in that office, we should doubtless have had 
as much ado about an unbroken line ; and could as easily find one in 
this case as in that of the bishops of Rome, or Constantinople. The 
same order obtained in the christian church — I mean, substantially, 
that obtained in the synagogues of the Jews. The same word 
w/JWei/TMicv or presbytery, is found in the New Testament in reference 
to both the synagogue and the church. " Stir up the gift," office " that 
is in thee, by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Indeed, 
the synagogue, much more than the tabernacle or temple, was the 
archetype of the order, which the apostles set up. In every case the 
question was put to the people, "Look out, choose out, select from 
among yourselves," &c. 

My friend is almost a Protestant on some points. . He occasionally 
recommends the bible to his flock, and he says that the ordinances of 
religion do not receive their virtue from an unholy or holy pope — that 
he has his authority to administer from Christ rather than from the 
pope. 

Indeed, I know not why the spirit of God should be promised 
through such a wretched and polluted channel as the popes of Rome, 
rather than to operate from heaven in all its holy influences upon those, 
who by its appointment, are chosen and ordained by prayer, fasting, 
and imposition of hands, as deacons or bishops of the christian con- 
gregations. We lose nothing then, in abandoning the leaky and 
sinking ship of pontifical authority in the Roman Catholic church.— 
[Time expired.] 

Half-past 10 o'clock, d. M. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

My friend has set me the example of recapitulating. I shall not 
fail to do so in due time. He has talked around one of the invincible 
texts of Scripture which I had adduced for Peter's headship : " Simon, 



142 DEBATE OS THE 

Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, (the plural) that he 
may sift you as wheat : but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith 
fail not: and thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren." St. Luke 
xxii. 32. And he gratuitously asserts that " Confirm" here means only 
" Comfort." But will any man say that such an interpretation has 
weakened the force of my argument from the text, or destroyed the 
avowed effect and object of the Savior's prayer, namely that the faith 
of Peter should never fail, and that, in it, he should confirm his bre- 
thren 1 Let him shew that Christ addressed a special prayer, for any 
similar purpose, in favor of all, or of any of the other apostles, and 
then he may summon Christ's appointed chief of the apostolic band, 
to surrender his preeminence. If he cannot do this, Peter must for 
ever retain his supremacy — not of age, nor of talents, nor of priority 
of call, nor of conversion, but of office. 

He again asserts, for Mr. C. seems to think we must grant every 
thing to his assertions, that I cannot find a solitary proof in Irenams, 
or in any other author of christian antiquity, that Peter was ever bish- 
op of Rome. Now in p. 169 of this Protestant edition of Irenaeus 
we find that warrant. It is in chap. I. book 3, "against heresies." 
He speaks as follows : 

"For we have not learned the disposition, or economy, of our salvation from 
any others than those through whom the gospel came unto us, which, indeed, 
they first preached, and afterwards, by the will of God, delivered to us in writ- 
ing, to be the pillar and ground of our faith. Nor is it lawful to say, as some 
do, who pretend to correct the apostles, that they preached before they had had 
perfect knowledge. For after the Lord had arisen from the dead, they were 
clothed with virtue from on high by the Holy Spirit who came down upon them, 
and they were filled with all knowledge and attained to perfect understanding; 
they went to the ends of the earth announcing to us the good things which are 
from God, and proclaiming heavenly peace to men, having both all and each of 
them the gospel of God. Thus Matthew, in their own language, wrote the 
gospel scripture in Hebrew, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing and found- 
ing the church of Rome. After their departure., Mark, a disciple, and Peter's 
interpreter, likewise announced to us the prescribed doctrines; next John, the 
disciple of the Lord, who also reposed on his breast, published likewise a gospel, 
residing at Ephesus, in Asia. And all these delivered to us the doctrine of One 
God, the Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the Lord and the prophets, 
and one Christ, the Son of God; to whom, he who assenteth not, despiseth the 
partakers of the Lord, despiseth Christ the Lord, despiseth the Father, and is 
condemned by himself, for he resisteth and opposeth his own salvation, which 
all heretics do." 

Tracing the succession of bishops in the same chair, he always make Peter the 
first bishop, as I have already shewn from the very next page — 170, of this 
volume. 

There is Irenaeus, a writer of the 2d century — year 150. I shall 
follow the devious track of the gentleman as well as I can. 

My friend denied that I could adduce a solitary testimony to prove 
that the legate of the pope presided over the first great general coun- 
cil of the church, after the council at Jerusalem. Now I am going 
to adduce Baronius, p. 295, year of Christ 325, year of Sylvester 12, 
Constantine 20 : (how faithful and exact our Catholic histories are!) 

"Before we proceed to narrate the history of the acts of the Nicene council, 
I pray you, friendly reader, to pause with me, to notice the most eminent prelates 
of that illustrious company of saints, that most flowery crown of fathers, and most 
distinguished assemblage of holy bishops, whose names shine forth from amidst 
the obscurity of so ancient a period. He who first attracts our attention, con- 
spicuous for having been twice legate, is Osius, bishop of Cordova, in Spain, re- 
presenting the bishops of Spain, and, as we have already said, holding the place 
(the Latin is still stronger — personam gerens — personating) Sylvester, bishop of 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 143 

Rome, and chief of the legates, his colleagues. Now, continues Baronius, what 
good ground could there have been for Osius' signing before his colleagues, the 
legates, before the bishops of the second and third sees of the christian world, 
viz. Alexandria and Antioch, and before Ccecilian, the primate of all Africa, not 
to speak of others, unless he held the place and represented the person of the 
highest power of all? He then quotes the commencement of the letter which 
the legates, immediately after the council, addressed to the pope: "To Sylves- 
ter, most blessed pope of the city of Rome, and entitled to all reverence, Osius, 
bishop of the province of Spain and city of Cordova, Victor and Vincentius, 
priests of the city of Rome, appointed by your direction," &c. &c. So far 
Baronius. 

Nat. Alex, says, vol. vii. p. 68, " The synod of Nice, first of the oecumenicals, 
was convoked by the emperor Coustantine, with consent of the Roman pontiff, Syl- 
vester — the president of the council, in the name of St. Sylvester, and his le 
gates were Osius, bishop of Cordova, Vitus or Vjto, and Vincentius, priests," &c.&c. 

It was the custom of the bishop of Rome to send a bishop and two 
inferior ecclesiastics to represent him in the councils. Osius was 
legate and Victor and Vincentius were his two assistants. 

Natalis Alexander says the same, p. 68, 7 vol. Fleury, another most 
authentic historian, a man of prodigious learning, a contemporary of Bos- 
suet, and one who has been very severe against the popes, so that we 
have quarreled with him for it, says the same, p. 107 and 108. He adds : 

" St. Athanasius says that Osius presided at all the councils, and it is certain 
that he presided at the council of Sardica, twenty two years later." 

Now we cannot see why a simple bishop of Cordova should have presided, 
by any right of his, over all the bishops of the world, even those of Alexandria 
and Antioch, who were present in person — Gelasius of Cyzicum says expressly 
that Osius held the place of Sylvester, bishop of imperial Rome, with the priests 
Victor (orVito, as he was also called) and Vincentius: and his testimony should 
not be suspected, as he was a Greek and writing the acts and records of Greeks. 
Subsequent usage is conformable to what is here observed. — In the oecumenical 
councils whose acts have come down to us, we see the papal legates at the head, 
and they are commonly, a bishop and two priests." 

Here are Baronius, Noel Alexander, Fleury. — The gentleman says 
that I deal in rhetoric, but he may say what he pleases ; I deal in 
nothing but stubborn facts. These are the irresistible arguments by 
which Catholic truth is upheld. 

As for Peter's executing the decrees of the council of Jerusalem, 
I said no such thing. He acted with the rest— but he did, 1 main- 
tain, lead, and his authority was wanting to give sanction to every 
decree. When he spoke, the " much disputing" ceased. He spoke 
humbly, but authoritatively. James and Paul and Barnabas acquiesced. 
The opposition to his gentilising was wrong and much in the spirit of 
more modern opposition, but Peter's authority then as it has ever done 
prevailed ; for if any thing is certain in historical testimony, it is proved 
that his authority was acknowledged to reside, in ancient days, in 
his successors. So is it now acknowledged. We were referred to 
10. John, where Christ speaks of the fold and the sheep; and ob- 
jections were made to my interpretation of the words " lambs" and 
" sheep," as contradictory and absurd. But now mark, my friends, 
the signal difference between the two passages. In 10. John, the 
Savior speaks of sheep alone. He says the sheep are scattered, and 
never mentions lambs. When therefore Christ says in the other pas- 
sage, feed my lambs, do we not remark that he afterwards changes 
the passage and says, feed my sheep ! and as I observed yesterday 
Christ means pastors, by the sheep whom the lambs, follow. 
Wide as the world, is Christ's fold — and there are over its va- 
rious provinces, or pastures, many shepherds, but one above the 



144 DEBATE ON THE 

rest, whose duty it is to watch over them all, to see they do their duty. 
— This is Peter, this is reasonable, it is as it ought to be. Thus, the 
rock, the keys, the charge to confirm his brethren, the acknowledge- 
ment of Paul that he went to see Peter, lest he might have run in vain, 
the acknowledgment of the authority of Peter's successors, the very 
necessity of such an office to keep order, &c. All this is proof positive 
from scripture and history and reason, of the supremacy of the chair 
of Peter, and not rhetoric — or if so, it is logical rhetoric. Let not 
scripture, history and reason be thus dismissed in the nineteenth cen- 
tury, with a wave of the hand. 

That eternal Du Pin, my friends, you have had my reasons against 
his authenticity as a Catholic historian : certainly he is no testimony 
against the Catholics. All my friend can adduce to prove that the au- 
thenticity of Du Pin was ever recognized in this country, is that some 
Catholic paper in Kentucky, as he says, allows his authenticity— 
Who the editor of this paper is, I know not. He may be a respectable 
Catholic. The bishop of Bardstown has nothing to do with it, the 
editor is liable to be deceived. His opinion ought to have no weight 
whatsoever in this controversy. 

What led my friend into such an error respecting the book itself, 
was, probably his seeing prefixed to it the censor's license for its im- 
pression ; but he should have known that the king of France appoints 
such persons as he thinks fit, to examine whether publications con- 
tain any thing dangerous to the state. And Louis Philip is more 
strict in this respect than ever Charles X. was, who was exiled 
from France for the same thing. 

The Doctors of Sorbonne, to whom the work was submitted, may 
have said the book contained nothing against faiih and morals. They 
do not say that he is an authentic Catholic historian. We apply criticism 
to every work, and our maxim is nullius addictus jurare in verba ma- 
gistri. The opinions of two or three Doctors of Sorbonne form 
no rule of faith for Catholics, although, in this instance, they say 
nothing, I presume, to which we may not very safely assent, while 
we describe Du Pin in his proper colors. After all Du Pin says noth- 
ing that does not go to prove my views, if considered fairly, al- 
though he was expelled the Sorbonne for heterodox opinions ! 

Now there were vacancies, breaks, in the chain, but the lapse of 
a few years; before binding together the links of the apostolic succes- 
sion, does not affect the great principle for which I am contending. 
We are no believers in metempsychosis: or that, like the supposed divinity 
of the Lama of Thibet, the soul of a deceased pope goes by a hop, skip 
and jump, right off', into his successor. We will wait six months, or six 
years, to find a good pope. Time is taken for this, since so much de- 
pends on the result. Now in this chain were some bad popes; we 
weep over the fact, my friends, and lament it. Mr. C. ought to have 
thrown the mantle over his shoulders and walked backwards with me 
and covered these frailties, for the sake of our common Christianity. 
The mass of the succession is sound. But there were some bad points. 

It is not the name, but the religion they represented, that we regard. 
Whether the stream of testimony came to us through conduits of 
gold, of silver, or of brass, it is not the channel of communication we 
regard, but the pure chrystal and transparent waters of celestial doc- 
trine, of divine truth. Men are liable to err — Jesus Christ said there 
must needs be scandals. We look for them ; we expect them to occur 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 145 

while there is yet remaining one single human being on this earth. 
None but God is perfect and man is good only by divine assistance. 
I have no special apology to offer for a pope who is a bad man. He 
should be the pattern of the flock from the heart. He should be the 
salt of the earth — the light of the world. He should remember that 
the " mighty shall be mightily tormented ;" and that " a most severe 
judgment shall be for them that bear rule if they walk not according to 
the law." I should not be surprised if these bad popes were at this moment 
expiating their crimes in the penal fires of hell. But what is the pro- 
per inference to be deduced from their melancholy aberrations 1 If 
they like Lucifer have fallen, bright light, from the firmament of re- 
ligion, do the heavens no longer proclaim the glory of God 1 Do 
the praises of God resound there no more 1 Why it is truly wonder- 
ful, that, bad men as they were, they should not only have never se- 
vered themselves from the faith but should have been the instru- 
ments of perpetuating sound doctrine at home and abroad. Nothing, 
my friends, gives me more faith in the genuineness and truth of our 
holy religion, than when in reviewing the history of these disgraceful 
enormities, I find the church, in the very midst of scandal, enough to 
blacken and overthrow any earthly institution, still supported and up- 
held by the almighty hand of God. A church that has stood through 
all that the gentleman has laid to the charge of the merely mortal 
men who have presided for a season over its destinies. A few op 

THEM ERRED IN MORALS, BUT NONE OF THEM IN FAITH ; SOUnd doctrine 

and sound morals were seen and admired, during these sad eclipses, 
and infidel nations were, during that passing obscurity in Rome, re- 
joicing in the beams of the orient sun of justice, heralded by Catho- 
lic missionaries. Let this be borne in mind when my learned oppo- 
nent undertakes to prove that the pope is the sea-serpent! And let 
my Protestant friends understand that the Roman Catholics detest 
immorality as much as they can, wherever it may be found : and most 
of all, where superior virtue was required by exalted station. We 
too had labored for a reformation, not of God's truth, for it needed 
none, but of men's morals which are always liable to corruption. 
We may cry out like the apostles, when we behold such scandals, O 
Lord, save us ere we perish — but we hear the divine answer, " why 
fear ye, O you of little faith." No cloud has ever yet impended 

OVER THE CHURCH, THAT THE RAINBOW OF PROMISE DTD NOT SHINE 
THROUGH THE GLOOM. 

The object of the institution of the church being no other than to 
establish the true worship of God, by the overthrow of idolatry, and 
to sanctify a chosen people for everlasting life, by the purest virtues 
of religion, we are not to wonder that Satan, the jealous enemy ofj 
human happiness, should exert his utmost powers to obstruct the be- 
nevolent design. In fulfilment of the Savior's prediction, and from 
the very nature of man, it was necessary that persecutions, heresies, 
schisms and domestic scandals should happen ; but Jesus Christ had 
likewise foretold that they should not prevail. The Pagan tyrants of 
the earth rnajr rage ; the courage and patience of our martyrs will tri- 
umph and multiply. Heresies may start up in various forms, and 
for a while seduce thousands into error ; they will, at length, sink 
back again into the dark abyss from which they first emerged. Gui- 
ded by the spirit of truth, and confirmed into the unity of her belief, 
the church will ever successfully oppose to their impotent attempts, 

N 19 



146 DEBATE ON THE 

the promises of her divine Founder, the antiquity of her faith, the con- 
sent of nations, the order of her hierarchy, the holy severity of her 
discipline, the bright example of thousands of her faithful children, 
the sacred history of her doctrines, and the decisions of her councils. 
Schisms may at times perplex and divide the faithful, but the church 
by her authority will either close the breach, or separate the refracto- 
ry members from her communion. The vicious lives of some of her 
children may contradict and disgrace their christian profession, they 
may violate her laws, they may insult her authority, and invade her 
sacred rights ; they never will be able to overturn her ministry, to 
shake her hierarchy or to alter her doctrine. She will never cease to 
warn sinners of their duty, to correct, to instruct, to direct mankind 
in the way of salvation. 

By her persevering zeal for God's honor, by the force of her ex 
hortations, by the solemnity of her public service, by the morality of 
her precepts, and by her practice of the evangelical counsels, she will 
continue to prepare souls for heaven, while she exhibits to the world 
a rich assemblage of the most heroic virtues. It is thus, that our his- 
tory attests the care which God has taken of his church. 

The whole number of popes has been nearly two hundred and sixty 
Of these, the first forty were saints, or martyrs, a small number only, not 
more than twenty, can be called bad men ; the rest were remarkable 
for eminent virtue, charity, zeal, learning and patronage of letters. 
Peter was twenty-five years bishop of Rome ; and non videbis annos 
Petri, you will not be pope as long as Peter — is a proverb which 
every new pope hears. Pius VI.' and Pius VII, came nearest to the 
years of Peter, but they did not attain them. But says the gentle- 
man, the pope transferred his see for some time from Rome, to 
Avignon. I grant it ; but have I not said, were he a wanderer in A- 
byssinia, he would still retain his title and authority. 

We were told of a council which cashiered three popes, and made 
a fourth ! My friends, what sophistry is this ? Does my friend think 
he is addressing people but one remove from barbarism, instead of the 
enlightened and liberal citizens of the queen of the west 1 I wish him 
to understand that we, at least, are equal to the people of Bethany in 
intelligence. Among these citizens, I thank God, my lot is cast. 
Does Mr. 0. — suppose that they cannot answer his sophistry by the 
true statement of the fact? The council cashiered three doubtful popes, 
or rather no popes at all, and elected one true pope. What has become 
of his logic 1 

Stephen VI. had the body of Formosus dug up and cut off his fingers. 
My friend has taken this from Pope andMcGuire's discussion, and has 
seen the answer there. In this unpardonable act of Stephen, we at 
least discern zeal for the rules of discipline, which forbade the trans- 
ferring of a bishop from one see to another. For this offence the need- 
less act of severity was done. It shews the popes expose what they 
think wrong in popes ; just as my friend would know nothing of their 
misdeeds, if Catholic historians had not had sincerity, piety "and zeal 
to denounce them. Genebrard said that the popes were more often 
apostates than apostles. I am sure that, in this case, truth was sac- 
rificed to wit, and faithful testimony to virtue as well as faithful ex- 
position of vice, for the gingle between the words apostates and 
apostles. But Genebrard says not, absolutely, they were apos-- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 14*7 

tates, but that they had fallen short of the virtues of their predeces- 
sors. 

My friend quarrels with the name, cardinals. The name is Latin and 
as old as that language. But I will not contend for the name. He 
says the cardinals, were not so called for 1000 years, but did not show 
his authority. This was, however, the title given to priests charged 
with the care of large churches, as far back as the year 150, or at 
least in 300. But call them what you may, they were a portion, and 
an eminent portion, of the Roman clergy in all ages. Now, as for- 
merly, there are cardinal priests, cardinal deacons, and even cardinal 
laymen. They are a superior order of men, the patrons of the arts 
and sciences, as well as the ornaments and supports of the church, 
and the benefactors of the poor. They liberally entertain and treat our 
travelling fellow-citizens with great civility — for instance, Mr. Dewey, 
an Unitarian minister, lately in Rome, and cardinal Weld, a dis- 
tinguished English nobleman, in whose father's castle, at Lul worth, 
if I am not mistaken, our fust archbishop, the cousin of Charles Car- 
roll of Carrollton, was consecrated bishop. — Read Mr. Dewey's ele- 
gant and thrilling pages. They will almost make you a Catholic. 
Certainly they will liberalize your minds already raised far above vul- 
gar prejudices. The cardinals elect the pope — but if the pope creates 
the cardinals, surely he does not create his own electors ! 

Mr. C. — has not told us yet, from what true and holy apostolic 
church, the Roman church apostatized. He has told you of the Albi- 
genses, Vaudois, Novatians, Donatists, &c, but they furnish no con- 
tinuous church. They are, I say again, ignoble ancestry. My friends, 
read history for yourselves if you wish to see what a miserable set of 
-wretches these sectarians were. 

My friend says, that Peter was married — but I defy him to prove 
that he retained his wife after he became a bishop. I will meet Mr. 
Campbell on this doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy, and shew 
him in the words of St. Paul, 1st Cor. i. 26, and in those of Jesus 
Christ, Matthew xix. 12, whose expressions, although he was purity 
itself, I dare not repeat in Mr. C — 's fastidious ears, " that there are 
not many wise according to the flesh" St. Paul, who was a bachelor, 
says, 1st Cor. vii. " I would that all were as myself. I say to the 
unmarried and the widows ; it is good for them if they so continue 
even as I. v. 8. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things 
that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with 
a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please 
his wife : and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the vir- 
gin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in 
body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the 
world, how she may please her husband." Read the entire chapter 
Marriage was ordained by Almighty God for the propagation of the 
human race. The Catholic church not only approves the institution, but 
teaches that Christ hath exalted it to the dignity of a sacrament. St. 
Paul, while he wishes all to be like himself, unmarried, still acknow- 
ledges that all are not called to that state; and they who cannot prac- 
tise continence, he wishes to marry ; so does the Catholic church. Her 
ministers are not allowed to take a vow of chastity until they have at- 
tained an age when they can, aided by divine grace, decide on their 
capability for its pure observance. And now, young ladies and gen- 



148 DEBATE ON THE 

tlemen, take care you never become what Mr. C. would make you, 
the successors of Paulicians. They condemned all connubial ties, 
saying that marriage came from the evil principle. But, married or 
single, let us not forget that our days in this life are numbered ; the 
gayest are frequently death's earliest victims. "For the fashion of this 
world, says the apostle, passeth away." Let priests then do good, even 
as Catholic religious have done, to the whole human family, renounc- 
ing the ties that would bind them to a few only, that they may be like 
God, the fathers and benefactors of many. 

Mr. C. spoke of ministering to the sick. I thank him for the hint. 
In deeds of charity, the Catholic priesthood, the Catholic religious of 
all orders, are unsurpassed. Their 4 labor of love' is seen in the hospital, 
the pest-house, the dungeon, the orphan asylum ; where the cholera 
makes its dreadful ravages, where the pestilence stalketh at noonday, or 
midnight ! Hear Waddington — 

" The Ursulines. Of the more modern orders, there is also onewhich may seem 
to require our notice — that of the Ursulines. Its origin is ascribed to Angela 
di Brescia, about the year 1537, though the saint from whom it received its 
name, Ursula Benincasa, a native of Naples, was born ten years afterwards. Its 
character was peculiar, and recalls our attention to the primitive form of ascetic 
devotion. The duties of those holy sisters were the purest within the circle of 
human benevolence — to minister to the sick, to relieve the poor, to console the 
miserable, to pray with the penitent. These charitable offices they undertook 
to execute without the bond of any community, without the obligation of any 
monastic vow, without any separation from society, any renouncement of their 
domestic duties and virtues. And so admirably were those offices, in millions of 
instances, performed, that had all other female orders been really as useless and 
vicious, as they are sometimes falsely described to be, the virtues of the Ursu- 
lines had alone been sufficient to redeem the monastic name. 

But it is very far from true, that these other orders were either commonly dis- 
solute or generally useless. Occasional scandals have engendered universal 
calumnies. " Waddingtoa's Church Hist, page 325, Is ew York edit. 1885. 

Mr. C. spoke of bad popes, Nicholas III. &c. &c. and of monks. — 
Hear again — what this Protestant historian says of them and of this 
very Nicholas. 

" It is not without reason that Roman Catholic writers vaunt the disinterested 
devotion of the early Mendicants — how assiduous they were in supplying the 
spiritual wants of the poor, how frequent in prisons and in hospitals, how forward 
to encounter the fire or the pestilence; how instant on all those occasions where 
the peril was imminent and the reward not in this world. They were equally 



ter, the method by which the gospel was introduced into the north of Europe 
before the middle of the eleventh century, In the twelfth, we observe Boles- 
laus, duke of Poland, opening the path for its reception in Pomerania by the 
sword; and in like manner, both the Sclavonians and Finlanders, were prepared 
for conversion by conquest. Again, Urban VIII. consecrated Mainhard, an un- 
successful missionary, bishop of the Livonians, and proclaimed a holy war against 
them ; the bishop conquered his see, and promulgated at the head of an army 
the tidings of evangelical concord. The same methods were pursued by Innocent 
III. But from that time forward we find much more frequent mention of pious 
missionaries, whose labours were directed to accomplish their great work by 
legitimate, or, at least, by peaceful means. It may be true, that some of them 
were satisfied with mere nominal conversions, and that others had chiefly in view 
either their own advancement, or the extension of the papal sovereignty. But 
there were likewise many who were animated by the most admirable motives, 
and whose exertions, if they failed of complete success, failed not through any 
want of disinterested devotion. The missions of the thirteenth and fourteenth 
centuries were principally directed to the north of Asia. In 1245, Innocent IV. 
sent an embassy, composed of Dominicans and Franciscans, to the Tartars; and 
a friendly communication was so maintained, that the envoys of Abaca, their 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 149 

king, were present, in 1271, at the second council of Lyons. Nicholas III. (in 
1278) and Nicholas IV. (in 1289,) renewed those exertions. John of Monte 
Corvino, a Franciscan, was distinguished during the conclusion of the century 
by the success of his labors; and in 1307, Clement V. erected an archiepiscopal 
iee at Cambalu, (Pekin,) which he conferred upon that missionary. Seven other 
bishops, also Franciscans, were sent to his support by the same pope; and this 
distant branch of the hierarchy was carefully nourished by succeeding pontiffs, 
especially John XXII. and Benedict XII. It is certain that the number of Chris- 
tians was not inconsiderable, both among the Chinese and Moguls, as late as the 
year 1370, — and they were still increasing, when they were suddenly swept 
away and almost wholly exterminated by the Mahometan arms. Howbeit, the 
disastrous overthrow of their establishment detracts nothing from the merit of 
those who constructed it; and it must not be forgotten, that the instruments in 
this work were Mendicants, and, for the most part, Franciscans. ' lb. p. 547. 

The Methodists have done themselves honor by the praises they have 
bestowed on Francis Xavier, a Jesuit. They have published his life, 
and to day, if I have time, I will quote from it some beautiful extracts. 

They and other Protestants have also published Thomas a Kempis, 
or the christian pattern. Where, except in the Gospel, can purer mo» 
rality be found 1 And Thomas a Kempis was a monk. We are told 
that Sacchi said that the Albigenses and Vaudois made a show of piety. 
That is a fact, and a pretty show it was. I will not read the indicated, 
but forbidden page of narrative sincere — better blot it with a tear ! 

If the pope is charged with severity to kings, it is because kings 
were tyrants and the pope was the advocate of the weak, and the 
enemy of arbitrary power. The people were crushed, and had no re- 
source but in the influence which God gave to the head of the 
church. 

" With all its errors, (the papacy's,) its corruptions, and its crimes, it was, 
morally and intellectually, the conservative power of Christendom. Politically, 
too, it was the savior of Europe; for, in all human probability, the west, like 
the east, must have been overrun by Mahommedanism, and sunk in irremediable 
degradation, through the pernicious institutions which have everywhere accom- 
panied it; if, in that great crisis of the world, the Roman church had not roused 
the nations to an united and prodigious effort commensurate with the danger. 

In the frightful state of society which prevailed during the dark ages, the 
church everywhere exerted a controlling and remedial influence. Every place 
of worship was an asylum, which was always respected by the law, and generally 
even by lawless violence. It is recorded, as one of the peculiar miseries of Ste 
phen's miserable reign, that during those long troubles, the soldiers learned to 
disregard the right of sanctuary. Like many other parts of the Romish system, 
this right had prevailed in the heathen world, though it was not ascribed to 
every temple. It led, as it had done under the Romish empire, to abuses which 
became intolerable; but it originated in a humane and pious purpose, not only 
screening offenders from laws, the severity of which amounted to injustice, but, 
in cases of private wrong, affording time for passion to abate, and for the desire 
of vengeance to be appeased. The cities of refuge were not more needed, under 
the Mosaic dispensation, than such asylums in ages when the administration of 
justice was either detestably inhuman, or so lax, that it allowed free scope to 
individual resentment. They have, therefore, generally been found wherever 
there are the first rudiments of civil and religious order. The churchyards also 
were privileged places, whither the poor people conveyed their goods for secu- 
rity. The protection which the ecclesiastical power extended in such cases, kept 
up in the people, who so often stood in need of it, a feeling of reverence and at- 
tachment to the church. They felt that religion had a power on earth, and that 
it was always exercised for their benefit. 

The civil power was in those ages so inefficient for the preservation of public 
tranquility, that when a country was at peace with all its neighbors, it was liable 
to be disturbed by private wars, individuals taking upon themselves the right of 
deciding their own quarrels, and avenging their own wrongs. Where there 
existed no deadly feud, pretexts were easily made by turbulent and rapacious men, 
n2 



150 DEBATE ON THE 

for engaging in such contests, and they were not scrupulous whom they seized and 
imprisoned, for the purpose of extorting a ransom. No law, therefore, was ever 
more thankfully received, than when the council of Clermot enacted, that, from 
sun-set on Wednesday to sun-rise on Monday, in every week, the truce of God 
should be observed, on pain of excommunication. Well might the inoffensive 
and peaceable part of the community (always the great, but in evil times the 
inert, and therefore the suffering part,) regard, with grateful devotion, a power, 
under whose protection they slept four nights of the week in peace, when other- 
wise they would have been in peril every hour. The same power by which in- 
dividuals were thus benefited, was not unfrequently exercised in great national 
concerns; if the monarch were endangered or oppressed either by a foreign 
enemy, or by a combination of his barons, here was an authority to which he 
could resort for an effectual interposition in his behalf; and the same shield was 
extended over the vassals, when they called upon the pope to defend them against 
a wrongful exertion of the sovereign power." Southey's Book of the Church, 
page 293. Boston, 1st. edit. 1825. 

Now I must follow Mr. C. wheeling right about from rear to van. 
We are told that Peter exercised the grand commission of Apostle — 
and that therefore he could not have been bishop of Rome, and again 
that Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. But Peter 
was the first apostle sent to the Gentiles — by the angel of Cod. He 
received Cornelius the centurion into the church. He founded the 
see of Antioch — a Gentile city. If Peter was an apostle of the whole 
world, where should he place his head quarters 1 Where, but at Rome, 
the mistress of the world, worthy field for a chief apostle's zeal ; 
where he could at once be heard by Gentiles and by Jews, by Greeks, 
Barbarians and Romans. 

We are told there are no vices to be discovered in the Pagan em- 
perors more flagrant and gloomy than those of the Roman pontiffs — 
that they became proverbial for their iniquity. But I have shown that 
these sweeping denunciations are glaringly untrue. There were 39 
martyrs out of 260 or 270 popes. If there were a few bad men among 
them, shall we for that reason fling away our faith ? Does Christ say 
so? Did he not say that it must needs be that scandals come ] And 
were not the vast majority of the popes entitled to veneration? 
Suppose there were about a dozen that were infamous, and that there 
were even fifty of various shades of guilt, or imperfection, there were 
still upwards of 200 worthy. Christ has said that " many are called, 
but few chosen." Show me 200 of the Roman emperors or a like 
proportion of any other rulers, to the popes, who were as good men, 
and who have deserved to go to heaven. Shall we point to Nero 
holding up the dagger which he had plunged into the breast of his 
own mother 1 to Diocletian, the man of sin, — the antichrist of the 
apostles, who mowed down hundreds of meek and peaceful disciples 
at once 1 — -to Caligula, the murderer of the saints ?— to Maxentius 1 — 
or the monster Maximin ] Where is there a parallel to their atroci- 
ties 1 My friend has talked of the inquisition, and on that point also 1 
will meet him. The inquisition was the vice of the age and not of the 
church. It was unknown for many centuries. In many Catholic 
countries it was never received. Other churches and times have, 
likewise, their sins of blood to answer for. [Time expired.] 

Half-past 11 o'clock, A. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

My friends if we proceed in this course we never shall dismiss the 
propositions we have before us. If we are to sit here and listen to 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 151 

such a variety of matter wholly irrelevant to the question we shall 
never prove any thing, or know what is proved. Must we have ques- 
tions introduced reaching back to the beginning of the discussion and 
forward to its close, and touching upon the whole system of theology 
in every speech 1 I have said already I will not lose sight of my 
duty so as to respond to every thing in one speech. 

I almost trembled when my opponent arose with so much pomp 
and appearance of having found a triumphant proof of his assertions 
in some hidden, and by me, unexplored corner of Ireneeus. What ! 
said I to myself, have I not thoroughly examined this matter ] Is it 
possible that there yet remains one passage unknown to me against 
my assertion, and have I committed myself? But it was even a lit- 
tle less alarming than his blustering about the consecration of Phocas. 
Judge of my surprise and great relief, when I found he was only rea- 
ding one of his elegant extracts, which he styles his proof! that in- 
deed, it was the same old story new vamped, and varnished without 
any reference at all, to the present debate. Irenaeus said, " while Pe- 
ter and Paul were founding the congregation at Rome." I would 
ask, is there in this audience, any stripling in knowledge, who under- 
stands that founding a congregation makes a man bishop of that 
church all his life 1 Missionaries go abroad, they plant congregations 
in particular places ; and they go from country to country, from city 
to city, to found other churches. Are they bishops of all the congre- 
gations that they esablish 1 It is essential to a missionary not to be 
stationary. But why expose a matter, already evident to all ] It is 
the gentleman's last effort. He has explored all antiquity, and all 
he can find, after three or four days, search, is this single fragment of 
a saint, stating on hearsay, that Paul and Peter planted the church at 
Rome ! So ends the controversy on that point, the main pillar of the 
Roman church. There is another little matter (there are too many 
little matters) which I wish to dispose of. 

The gentleman affects a great accuracy in his knowledge, and great 
precision on the part of his authorities. He seems to glory in that 
sort of reputation, else I would not select this trifle. How often has 
he asserted that Sylvester summoned the council of Nice, and that 
the pope's legates presided over it ! And how often has he tried to 
prove it ! Like some other matters already disposed of, after sleeping 
two nights upon the subject, as one that had a pleasant dream, he 
awakens and affirms again, that Osius, a Spanish bishop, was legate 
of Sylvester, and as such presided at Nice. But did he prove it 1 
I shall read you some testimony on this subject. I do this, not to add 
to the weight of my arguments one grain of sand ; but to prove that 
when I assert any thing as a fact, I do it advisedly, and will stand to it. 
Permit me now to correct a mistake into which the gentleman has 
fallen, that I relied upon the testimony of an ephemeral paper in Ken- 
tucky. I did not say, that it was upon such authority I read any au- 
thor here. My allusion to that paper, was a pure argumentum ad ho- 
minem ,- and was made for bishop Purcell and no one else. [The 
bishop of Bardstown or some of his clergy admitted that Eusebius 
and Du Pin, though not good Catholics, " were authentic historians." 
But that admission gives them no new weight, or indeed, no weight at 
all with me. I have already given my reasons for the authority of Du 
Pin. But where, may I ask, is his authority for Sylvester's calling 
the council of Nice ! " The emperor did it at the general suggestion 



152 DEBATE ON THE 

of the eastern bishops. And if Osius presided, we have no reason 
to think that he did it as the pope's legate. For this we have an- 
cient authority. The gentleman spoke in warm admiration of Osi- 
us : but did he not apostatize, or some way lose his orthodoxy 1~\ He 
was, indeed, a learned and talented man — a sort of standing presi- 
dent in the early councils ; and in that age of the world as among ec- 
clesiastics there were few men of general learning, we therefore find 
him conspicuous in all assemblies ; and his name stands first in the 
subscriptions of the decrees and creeds of the early part of the 4th 
century, but that he presided as the pope's legate in any council, espe 
cially that of Nice, is insusceptible of proof. 

We shall however hear antiquity on the subject. 

44 Constantine seeing that he had labored in vain to allay the disputes which 
divided the church, thought it would be the most ready and effectual means to 
restore peace, to call a numerous synod composed of eastern and western bishops. 
This council was called cecuminical, i. e. a council of the whole world, or the 
whole earth, because it was called together from all parts of the Roman empire, 
to which the title of the world, or earth, was given, and which did almost in- 
clude the Catholic church. This council was assembled by order of the em- 
peror at Nice, a city of Bithynia, about the month of July, in the year 325, in 
the second year of Constantine's reign. St. Sylvester was then bishop of Rome, 
who sent thither Victor and Vincentius, his legates. It is commonly held that 
this council consisted of 318 bishops; but those who were present at it do not 
precisely determine this number, but say only that there were about 300 bishops. 
'Tis not certainly known who presided in this council, but it is very probable 
that it was Hosius who held the chief place there in his own name, because he 
had already taken cognizance of this affair, and was much esteemed by the em- 
peror, who was then present. 

Athanasius, in his second apology, calls Hosius the father and president of all 
the councils. The name of this bishop is the first in all the subscriptions. Alex- 
ander was much esteemed, as appears by the letter of the council. Eustathius, 
of Antioch, was called the chief bishop of the council by Proclus and by Facun- 
dus; but it is more probable that Hosius presided there in his own name, and not 
in the pope's, for he no where assumes the title of legate of the holy see; and 
none of the ancients say that he presided in this council in the pope's name. 
Gelasius Cizicenus, who first affirmed it, saj-s it without any proof or authority." 

Du Pin, vol. I, pp. 598, 599. 

Now where is the gentleman's authority for the nature of the bish- 
op of Rome or his legates, either calling or presiding in this council ! 
Upon such disregard of ancient history rest many such assertions now 
in common circulation and in common belief. But as I said before 
on this point, I should not have dwelt a moment upon it, had not my 
opponent affected peculiar accuracy in his details. 

The bishop admits Barronius to be an authentic historian. Now, 
neither Barronius nor Du Pin even admitted so much in reference to 
the demerits of the popes, as bishop Purcell has admitted in the pre- 
sence of this great congregation : For he says " I have no doubt 
but these bad popes are now expiating their crimes in the pen- 
al fires of hell." While these words were sounding in my ears, 
the question simultaneously arose, with the sensation produced, What ! 
Has the Lord Jesus his vicars — his representatives on earth, now 
roasting in the flames of hell 1 I put it to intelligent men, whether 
such an idea is not repugnant to every principle of the christian re- 
ligion'? 

When Simon proposed to purchase the gift of the Holy Spirit, 
what did Peter say to him 1 " Thy money perish with thee !" Does 
this look like winking at such enormities 1 Were not the apostles 
all persons of unblemished reputation 1 and if such holy men, the 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 153 

models of every virtue, were first appointed by the Lord to conduct 
the affairs of his kingdom, how comes it to pass that he has changed 
his administration and trusted it to such a succession of pretended 
representatives 1 Has Christ changed his purpose with respect to 
his church, that he will allow its supreme head on earth to act every 
species of crime, and yet be his acceptable vicegerents ! May I not 
say, that the darkest hour of midnight is not more opposed to the light 
of noon, than is the general character of the popes of Rome to that 
of the apostles ! 

The gentleman exclaims, " How precise these Catholics always 
in their dates !" There is however, an over precision, that creates 
suspicion. When a man begins to swear very circumstantially before 
his word is called in question, I begin to suspect his evidence : and 
when I see authors testifying that Peter reigned twenty four years 
five months and ten days, bishop of Rome (as I have it on some ta- 
bles of the popes.;) I think he ought also to come down to hours, 
minutes and seconds ! and then we would know how to appreciate him. 

This resembles Peter's putting away his wife after he became 
bishop of Rome. " What accuracy !" Let the gentleman prove first 
that he was bishop of Rome, and then we shall show that he still 
retained his wife. 

The gentleman's compliments to the citizens of Cincinnati, however 
well deserved on their part, will not so blind the eyes of this audience 
as not to understand the argument ; and the design of their panegyrist. 
Nor will his gratuitous denunciation of the Albigenses, Donatists, 
Novatians, Paulicians, and others, pass for historic truth. They were 
such " vile heretics" in the estimation of " holy mother," as are we 
" schismatical Protestants." Their reputation we have fully sustain- 
ed from unexceptionable authority. 

The gentleman will have Du Pin in every speech. Can he prove, 
or has he proved him unfaithful in stating a single historic fact 1 Not 
one. Nor can he disprove those Roman Catholic vouchers for him 
on whose testimony I rely. 

But as the reiteration of assertion is no proof, and as I am not ob- 
liged to repeat arguments as often as he makes assertions, I shall - 
notice one or two new matters to which he would give emphasis. 

But it is time to examine the philosophy of the plea for wicked 
popes. The Messiah descended through a long line of ancestors, some 
of whom were wicked men. That is, the human nature of the Messiah 
descended through some wicked progenitors. Indeed ! To the honor 
of Jesus Christ, be it said, he humbled himself for our exaltation \ 
he condescended to be made of a woman, to be descended from Adam, 
Noah, and others. In such a long line, he must necessarily, have 
had all the varieties of human nature in his ancestors. He chose 
to maka himself of no reputation — to be born in a stable, of the hum- 
blest and poorest parentage. But who would argue from thence, that 
because his flesh and blood were so descended ; therefore, the Holy 
Spirit must descend to the church, in all its official gifts of authority 
and governmental influence, through a lineage of persons, whose hearts 
were full of murder, adultery, and all uncleanness ] and that through 
the hands of such persons all the graces of the ordinances must flow 
to all the partakers of the christian institution 1 Does not, let me ask, 
the defence make the matter worse ] Is there any analogy between the 
descent of flesh, and the Spirit of God 1 Is the formation of the 

20 



154 DEBATE ON THE 

human body, and the creation of the mystical body of Christ, matters 
of equal value and importance 1 

God has generally, employed the best of our race in all the affairs 
of our salvation. His agents have often been angels or the best men. 
He did not often impart such sacred trusts to men of bad character. 
A wicked Balaam or a treacherous Judas may have been amongst 
those employed, for special reasons in some great crisis. In the case 
of Balaam, he caused even an ass to open its mouth and reprove the 
madness of the prophet : but that he ever set such persons over his 
church, and gave the affairs of his kingdom into such hands — that 
he went so far as to select these wicked popes to speak his word, 
is repugnant to all history, and our experience of his dealings with 
men. 

The gentleman says there were two hundred good popes. I do not 
admit this : but I am willing to help him so far as to say I can count 
forty nine saints out of the first fifty popes according to my calendar. 
But they lived long ago. Not one of the last fifty has been a saint. — 

Bishop Purcell — Yes there is one. 

Mr. Campbell — I beg the gentleman's pardon. There is one saint, 
then, out of the last fifty popes ! It is a happy thing for human na- 
ture, that the vices and faults of those who have redeeming qualities, 
die with them, while their virtues live and magnify, long after their 
death. Hence, our remote ancestors and those of ancient times, if at 
all distinguished, are canonized in the admiration of the living, and 
are supposed greatly to excel our contemporaries. 

The bishop says, that if the pope were a poor wanderer in the 
mountains of the moon, it would not destroy his authority. — Though 
the see of St. Peter should be vacant for seventy years ! If so, the 
whole argument for Roman episcopacy falls to the ground. If the gen- 
tleman admits that the pope has as much authority in the mountains 
of the moon as in Rome, why all this controversy about Rome ? 

The gentleman made himself very merry with the council's depos- 
ing three popes and creating a fourth. But I repeat, there were in all 
four popes created and destroyed at that one time. I feel no mis- 
givings of conscience for making this assertion. I ask now, how are we 
to decide which of these four had the best title to St. Peter's chair ? 
Where is the authority for a council's creating one and destroying three 
popes 1 No council before ever took so much on them. But if we 
say with the bishop, that not one of the three popes was a true pope ; 
then what a long link is wanting in the succession ; and how could 
the council of Constance furnish it 1 

My friend the bishop spoke of marriage quite in jocular style — : but 
he told one great truth which I hope he will stick to, to the end. It was 
this : He said that the church had made marriage one of the seven 
sacraments— mark it. The church has made it a sacrament ; and she 
has made other things sacraments : which the great universal Father 
of heaven and earth has not so made and designated. 

Peter was sent to convert the Gentiles. — He opened the kingdom 
of heaven to Cornelius and his family : but this does not interfere 
with his being specially the apostle of the Jews. 

There were various vacancies in the Roman see of shorter and 
longer duration — several of two or three years, continuance. The 
church was often without a head for years at a time. 

Was it the intention of the great Author of the christian institution 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 155 

to hazard such a contingency 1 Would he have set on foot such an 
order of things 1 — The chair often vacant and often filled with wicked 
popes. Now, if the church could get along for years without a pope, 
could it not dispense with one altogether 1 F or if faith in the pope 
be an essential part of the faith, would Jesus Christ have suffered 
the whole administration of the affairs of salvation to be so often and 
so long suspended ? How many persons were born and died during 
these vacancies ! How many souls were detained in purgatory ; and 
otherwise endangered in their spiritual interests by these unavoidable 
interruptions ! — [Time expired.] 

Twelve o'clock, M, 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

The question for to-day is the uniformity of the Catholic faith and 
practice ; and we are still upon the subject of apostolicity. Mr. C. 
cannot go ahead as fast as he anticipated. He has discovered that 
Paulicians, Donatists and Novatians have the bar sinister on their coat 
of arms, and he takes up with the Vaudois, for whom Reynier and Wad- 
dington have said a good word. Well let us hear the latter, as he is a 
Protestant. T may not quote, if I can avoid it, Catholic testimony, p. 
290. " At the same time we must admit that the direct historical evi- 
dence is not sufficient to prove the apostolical descent of the Vaudois." 
There ! the chain of evidence breaks off right short ; and the Novatians, 
Donatists and Paulicians cannot weld it. " Besides," says our histo- 
rian, " while they (the Vaudois) obliged their clergy to be poor and 
industrious, they compelled them to be illiterate also." This, at least, 
my friend will condemn. 

He says, I have slept and dreamed for two nights on the subject of 
my testimony, concerning Osius' presiding, in the name of Sylvester, 
at the council of Nice. But have I not already produced Baronius, 
and have there not been for the last two days of this debate, other re- 
spectable authorities on the table, modestly waiting to be heard 1 He 
said I could not get a single proof earlier than the fifth century, and 
then, that the reason why Osius presided in the councils was the want 
of learning in that age, in the East. Why, when my friend says this 
he admits all, himself, and leaves me nothing to say. But the 
fourth century was the golden age of the whole church. There were 
many learned men, not only in the West but in the East, and if he will 
consult Baronius, he will find that there has rarely been presented to 
the veneration of the Catholic world as bright an array of great and 
good men, as that, which in 325, assembled in the council at Nice— 
and Du Pin encore. He makes for me. He does say that Victor and 
Vincentius, were legates of Sylvester. 

To give more solemnity, and if possible, more complete effect to their 
decision, the bishops of the Christian world met to banish Arianism 
and establish the grand cardinal doctrine of the divinity of Christ, 
which the Arians impugned. Constantine was there ; but he acknow- 
ledged the distinctness of the ecclesiastical authority. We hear of no 
collision between him and Sylvester, or any of the Nicene bishops. 
The church was in no absolute want of his aid, but as it was freely 
given, it was gratefully accepted. There were no canals, rail-roads, 
or hotels in those days. In the emperor's munificence, the fathers 
of Nice found those resources which their poverty denied them. To 



156 DEBATE ON THE 

his son Constantius, it was, however, that Osius fearlessly said, "Do 
not interfere in ecclesiastical matters, for to you God gave the empire ; 
but to us ecclesiastical concerns. Now as he who should deprive you 
of your kingdom would resist the ordinance of God, so do you beware 
lest you fall into some grievous sin by taking away the indepen- 
dence of the church. 

My learned friend says he will not go further on these matters. It 
is well — discretion is the better part of valor. The voice of all anti- 
quity has spoken — The authority of Rome has ever stood preemi- 
nent. 

I did not say, I did not doubt these popes were in hell. I beg the 
gentleman to quote me correctly. Far be it from me, to arrogate a 
right which belongs to God alone, to decide on man's eternal destiny 
— but I said, I should not be surprised, at it, when I consider their de- 
fects and sins on the one hand, their knowledge, responsibility and 
grace, on the other. The more eminent their station, the more con- 
spicuous to the whole world, like spots on the sun, were their frail- 
ties — the brighter the example of their predecessors, the darker, by 
contrast, did they appear. But the circumstances of the times in 
which they lived, must be taken into the account to palliate, if truth will 
not permit us to excuse, their failings. The lights and shadows are 
blended, perhaps necessarily, in the moral as well as in the physical 
world ; and as we do not deny the existence of an infinitely wise and 
good God, because we discover apparent imperfection in the material 
world, the volcano, the poison, the venomous reptile, the whirlwind, 
the pestilential malaria, so neither do we conclude that religion, or the 
church, is not his work, because we sometimes meet with examples of 
moral deformity and disorder which mar the beauty of the heavenly 
design. But Mr. C. thinks that God would never allow men whom 
he had selected for the high function of 'Roman Catholic popes, to fall 
into sins that would merit for them hell-fire. Does he then forget that 
God created Lucifer, as a bright leader of the angelic throng, and yet 
Lucifer is now a reprobate spirit in hell ? Does he forget that Judas 
was selected to share in the infallibility, which he allows was granted 
to the twelve "? Did not Jesus train him up in his own school for three 
years 1 And did not Judas, after all, betray his God and sell him for 
the thirty pieces of silver] Did he not afterwards go and hang him- 
self in despair, and his bowels gushed out. Was it not because of the 
excess of his own favor to Judas, and the inconceivable ingratitude of 
the apostle, that the Son of God had said by the mouth of his prophet : 
Ps. liv. 14. " If my enemy had reviled me, I would verily have borne 
with it, and if he that hated me, had spoken great things against me, 
I would perhaps have hidden myself from him : but thou, a man of one 
mind, my guide and my familiar" This is what makes a priest's, 
or a bishop's sin so great. This, aw T ful as it is, is w 7 hat sustains us 
when scandals befall the church, w 7 hen the lights of the sanctuary are 
eclipsed and its pillars broken and scattered on the earth, for we say 
to ourselves Christ has allowed all this beforehand in that miniature 
band, his own apostles — the exemplar of his church : and the number 
of bad popes has not yet equalled the proportion of one to twelve! God 
has allowed all this to teach us, that if men fall away, the faith for 
which his holy promises are pledged, is invincible. " The gifts of God 
are without repentance ," Rom. xi.29, in other words, Christ established 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 157 

the primacy of Peter. He wished it to persevere. If any of the suc- 
cessors of Peter are bad men ; the answer of Paul comes up, " The 
gifts of God are without repentance." If man behaves badly, it is for 
his own ruin, but his evil conduct shall not change the order and de- 
sign of heaven. 

It was attempted to show that there was no analogy between the 
ancestry of Christ, and the succession of St. Peter. Now I maintain that 
if the ancestry of Judah's royal line, magnificent as it was and des- 
tined to be the forerunner of Him of, whom Paul had many and great 
things and hard to be understood, to declare, could yet include some 
of the worst sinners, why might not the apostolical succession, in 
which was, individually or collectively, nought so holy as He to whom 
all the prophets bore witness, in whom was seen on earth, all the glo- 
ry of the Father, full of grace and truth 1 

I refer to the first chapter of Matthew where the temporal genera- 
tion of the Savior is traced from David, and my argument is this ; that 
as it has not impaired the sanctity of Jesus to come according to the 
flesh, from him, though he sinned, and from others who sinned as he 
had sinned, so neither did it detract from the sanctity of the office of 
pope, that there were some bad men among the number. The cases 
are therefore, so far as that argument is concerned, analogous ; and we 
may exclaim with a holy awe — Oh ! the depth of the riches, and of 
the knowledge, of the wisdom of God ! How incomprehensible are 
his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways ! Who hath known 
the mind of God, or who hath been his counsellor ] St. Paul, Rom. 
xi. S3, 34. My friend says that holy men were always selected by the 
Holy Ghost for holy purposes ! and what will he say of Luther, who 
proves, as I can show by his own testimony, himself to have been 
a bad man ! I have his works here in three vols, folio — a Daniel 
come to judgment ! He was " a hard wedge to split knotty blocks !" 
&c. Yes, he had a hard mouth, and a hard heart. But I will not 
speak of Luther nor of Calvin, hard, unless compelled. 

The gentleman says there were forty-nine saints in the first fifty. 
I said there were 39 who were saints and martyrs. Since that, there 
have been many pontiffs, saints. Pius the 7th possessed all the vir- 
tues which may entitle him to be so considered. So did his predeces- 
sor Pius VI. so did Benedict XIV. and Pius VIII. and Leo XII —So 
does the present pontiff, a man of the purest morals, profound humil- 
ity, enlightened zeal and eminent learning. We have heard many 
silly predictions of the doctrine of his temporal influence in Rome, 
but I repeat that he would retain his spiritual authority, if he were 
compelled to leave that city, which I hope after his predecessors have 
stood their ground for eighteen hundred years he never will. His au- 
thority does not reside in the stones, and bricks and pave-ments of 
Rome ! 

The gentleman speaks of the schism of Avignon, for my friend 
thinks that if the pope should leave Rome, the Catholic faith would 
be annihilated. He does not know that the title of the see would 
follow the pope. We never suffer even the name of a see to perish. 
If Christianity forsake a country, where it has, once, been established 
the names of the sees would survive. Thus the present, learned and 
pious Coadjutor, bishop of Philadelphia, takes his ecclesiastical desig- 
nation from Arath in partibus infideliurn. The titular bishop of Phil- 
O 



158 DEBATE ON THE 

adelphia is blind from his great age. The bishop of Bardstown is 
also, nominally, bishop of a foreign see. 

Now let me, once for all, say that my friend has several times mis- 
taken my views and words, on the subject of appointment to office. 
I need not repeat what I have said on that subject. We do nothing 
without the pope's concurrence and sanction, in spiritual matters. 
This communion is a peculiar trait in our church. We exult in it. 
It keeps us together as the sheep of one fold. " He who gathereth 
not with me scattereth," saith the Lord. By this communion with 
the see of Peter, we know that the church is orthodox and sound. 
On this account we yield all due deference to the pope. On this ac- 
count we ask of him the " canonical investiture," which signifies that a 
person is authorized by him to be made bishop, and inducted into the 
sacred office by his authority. 

We were told that councils met together and elected popes. There 
is nothing extraordinary in this. Why, my dear friends, common sense 
teaches this course. Christ's foreknowledge of all the occurrences 
that were to take place in the government of the earth, caused him to 
organize society. If not, disorder would ensue. On such a principle 
as the gentleman's, there could be no common bond of union. If Christ's 
society in the world and men will not consent to be held together by 
social rules, his design is baffled. The church is a society. Hence 
St. Paul says, "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for 
they who resist, purchase for themselves damnation." Rom. xiii. 1. 
Again, " Remember your prelates who have spoken to you the word 
of God ; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation." 
And again " obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they 
watch as being to render an account of your souls, that they may do 
this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you." 
Heb. xiii. 17. Without subordination there can be no peace, and 
consequently no happiness, in any society of men, but particularly in 
a religious society. The church is the pillar and the ground of the 
truth, 1st Tim. iii. 15. [Time expired.] 

Three o'clock, P. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

Before the third proposition is read, I beg leave to offer both an ex- 
planation and an apology. 

In reference to the proposition which has just been discussed, I 
have lying before me an index of the popes from the time of Peter to 
Innocent II. A, D. 1676. Here are two hundred and forty popes. In 
the first fifty, forty-nine were saints. We notice a diminution in sanc- 
tity as we descend to our own times ; for in the last ninety popes on 
the list, there is only one saint. The church made her own saints. 
She ought, therefore, to know the reason why. It rests in her own 
judgment: but, in my judgment, she has made in her popes as many 
as, in any decency, she possibly could ; and many more in name than 
she even had in reality. 

The gentleman (and it was one of his most lucky hits) compares the 
fact that there was one traitor among twelve apostles, to the fact, that 
there were fifty bad popes among two or three hundred popes. This 
is a happy salvo. Judas has relieved many a hard case ; but the con- 
duct of Judas is no apology for the popes. It has another meaning in 
scripture, than to justify or excuse such flagitious cases. The Savior 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 159 

you will remember, in his prayer (John xvii.), says : u Of all thou hast 
given me I have lost only one, the son of perdition ;" because he was 
spoken of in the Old Testament, and described as a traitor. The use of 
Judas among the twelve, is not always duly appreciated. But for 
him, as respects the credibility of the testimony, it might have been 
said, that the twelve apostles were all the personal friends of Christ ; 
and, although persons of fair reputation, yet their testimony was that 
of friends. To prevent this reflection, and to make it perfect in every 
point of view, one enemy is made the confidant of Jesus, as much as 
any one of them. He is admitted to all the secrets of the schemes of 
the Messiah, as much as his other companions. He is a covetous 
wretch, and sells his master for fifteen dollars. Yet, under the con- 
viction of his guilt, after a little reflection, he goes to the high priest, 
and makes confession of his sin, saying : " I have betrayed innocent 
blood." This, at this crisis, in all the circumstances, is the best tes- 
timony of the twelve. It was essential to the consummation of the 
testimony against the imputation of collusion amongst his friends ; and 
Judas is as much a martyr to the truth of Christianity, as any one of 
his companions : a martyr, indeed, not to his own honor, but to the 
blameless reputation of the author and founder of the christian faith. 
This, then, explains the reason of such a permission in that case. But, 
hearken to the sequel. To prevent a bad use of such a permission or 
allowance even, the Lord suggested to his disciples to cast lots — to 
appeal to heaven in electing a successor to Judas, that they might not 
be endangered in the reputation of another apostle, and that he might 
be sent from God. To have permitted persons of this character to 
stand forward in the front rank of the gospel, would have endangered 
the cause. The delinquency of the popes is opposed to the plan and 
government of the christian institution ; and had it not been for the 
reputation of the Roman clergy, we cannot tell how much more the 
cause of Christ would have triumphed ere now. This is the expla- 
nation. 

Now, for the apology. It is for the difficulties, which our worthy 
friend had to encounter in finding a succession in the bishops of Rome, 
that we offer an apology. This apology ought to be a part of this book, 
for the sake of a particular class, who have not leisure to trace the 
causes of these things. 

The bishop could find no testimony in behalf of Peter's having had 
the see.of Rome ; because that was not the ground on which that see 
first claimed the supremacy : if it had, we should have had plenty of 
old traditions to sustain it. The ancient and true ground of ascribing 
to the bishop of Rome superior importance, and of his arrogating any 
sort of superiority over other bishops, was, that his see was the impe- 
rial city : not because Peter or Paul had ever been bishop of Rome. 
Rome was mistress of the world, the metropolis of the empire, the 
great city, the emperor's residence. The bishop of Rome, moreover, 
had the richest church in the world, and most honorable diocese ; and 
being neighbor to the emperor, he became proud : for, said he to him- 
self, " As the emperor governs the whole world, so ought I to govern 
the whole church." From such seeds sprung the apostolic tree ! 

Constantine became a Christian : Byzantium is changed into Con- 
stantinople : the Constantine family take up their residence there : it 
begins to be called New Rome ,* and with that began the rivalry be- 



160 DEBATE ON THE 

tween old and new Rome. Soon there are two empires (for the empire 
was divided), one of the east, and one of the west. There must be, 
now, two great imperial bishops ; and the east and west churches, or, 
the Greek and Roman, began to feel the spirit of rival aggrandizement. 
The controversy began, and the prospects of the new city outrivaled 
those of the old city. But, just as the sceptre and mitre were about 
passing from Rome to Constantinople, some ingenious person, whose 
name no monument records, thought of a happy expedient to save the 
sinking fortunes of the eternal city. It was, that Peter and Paul had 
founded the church of Rome : nay, that Peter and Paul were buried 
there ! 

Constantina, the empress of the east, at the close of the sixth cen- 
tury, finding that this discovery was unfortunate to the rising majesty 
of the east, sent an express to Rome to obtain the remains of Paul, and 
have them conveyed to Constantinople. She was willing that Peter 
should remain in the Lateran ; but she wished to possess Paul. She 
thought this would equalize the pretensions of new Rome and old 
Rome, and give her equal claims upon the devotion of the saints and 
pilgrims of the church. Had it not been for her failure in this strata- 
gem, no one can tell whether Rome had not been, ages since, like 
Thebes or Babylon. On this subject, thus speaks the elegant Gibbon : 
" Like Thebes, or Babylon, or Carthage, the name of Rome might have been 
erased from the earth, if the city had not been animated by a vital principle, 
which again restored her to honor and dominion. A vague tradition was embraced 
that two Jewish teachers, a tent-maker and a fisherman, had formerly been exe- 
cuted in the circus of Nero, and at the end of five hundred years their genuine 
or fictitious relics were adored as the palladium of christian Rome." Decl. and 
Fall Rom. Emp. Vol. viii. p. 161. 

"A vague tradition" This is happily expressed. But the superior 
tact of St. Gregory saved Rome from this misfortune ; and he managed 
the petition of Constantina with great address, as we shall presently 
show. I beg leave to read from Waddington : 

Reverence for Relics. The empress Constantia, who was building a church 
at Constantinople to St. Paul, made application to Gregory for the head of that 
Apostle,* or at least for some portion of his body. The pope begins his answer 
by a very polite expression of his sorrow * that he neither could nor dared to 
grant that favor; for the bodies of the holy apostles, Peter and Paul, are so 
resplendent with miracles and terrific prodigies in their own churches, that no 
one can approach them without great awe, even for the purpose of adoring them. 
When my predecessor, of happy memory, wished to change some silver arma- 
ment which was placed over the most holy body of St. Peter, though at the 
distance of almost fifteen feet, a warning of no small terror appeared Jto him. 
Even I myself wished to make some alteration near the most holy body of St. 
Paul, and it was necessary to dig rather deeply near his tomb. The superior of 
the place found some bones which were not at all connected with that tomb; and 
having presumed to disturb and remove them to some other place, he was visited 
by certain fearful apparitions, and died suddenly. My predecessor, of holy 
memory, also undertook to make some repairs near the tomb of St. Laurence: 
as they were digging without knowing precisely where the venerable body was 
placed, they happened to open his sepulchre. The monks and guardians who 
were at the work, only because they had seen the body of that martyr, though 
they did not presume so much as to touch it, all died within ten days; to the end 
that no man might remain in life who had beheld the body of that just man. 

* Baronius, who cites the pope's reply with considerable admiration, attributes the em- 
press's exorbitant request to ecclesiastical ambition, — to a desire to exalt the see of Con- 
stantinople to a level with that of Rome, by getting into her possession so important a por- 
tion of so great an apostle. Fleury quotes the letter chiefly in proof that the transfer of 
relics was forbidden in the Roman church, while that abuse was permitted in the east. 



R03IAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 161 

Be it then known to you, that it is the custom of the Romans, when they give 
any relics, not to venture to touch any portion of the body; only they put into 
a box a piece of linen (called brandeum,) which is placed near the holy bodies; 
then it is withdrawn and shut up with due veneration in the church which is 
to be dedicated, and as many prodigies are then wrought by it as if the bodies 
themselves had been carried thither; whence it happened, that in the times of St. 
Leo, (as we learn from our ancestors,) when some Greeks doubted the virtue of 
such relics, that pope called for a pair of scissors, and cut the linen, and blood 
flowed from the incision. And not at Rome only, but through the whole of the 
west, it is held sacrilegious to touch the bodies of the saints, nor does such te- 
merity ever remain unpunished. For which reason we are much astonished at 
the custom of the Greeks to take away the bones of the saints, and we scarcely 
give credit to it. But what shall I say respecting the bodies of the holy apostles, 
when it is a known fact, that at the time of their martyrdom, a number of the 
faithful came from the east to claim them? But when they had carried them out 
of the city, to the second milestone, to a place called the catacombs, the whole 
multitude was unable to move them farther, — such a tempest of thunder and 
lightning terrified and dispersed them. 

The napkin too, which you wished to be sent at the same time, is with the body 
and cannot be touched more than the body can be approached. But that your 
religious desire may not be wholly frustrated, I will hasten to send xo you some 
part of those chains which St. Paul wore on the neck and hands, if indeed I 
shall succeed in getting off any filings from them. For since many continually 
solicit as a blessing that they may carry off from those chains some small portion 
of their filings, a priest stands by with a file; and sometimes it happens that 
some portions fall off from the chains instantly and without delay ; while at other 
times, the file is long drawn over the chains, and yet nothing is at last scraped 
oft' from them." Wad. Chh. Hist, pages 140, 141. 

By this rhetoric, the bodies of Paul and Peter were saved for Rome. 
And thus, when she lost the government of the world, and ceased to 
be the imperial city, she had a better argument for her supremacy than 
before. But, had this been thought of a few centuries sooner, my 
opponent would have been able to confound me with a host of tradi- 
tionary witnesses, assuring us that Peter was made bishop of Rome 
and universal father of the whole church. 

[Mr. C. here called for the reading of the third proposition, which 
was read by one of the moderators.] 

Prop. III. " She is not uniform in her faith, nor united in her members; but 
mutable and fallible, as any other sect of philosophy or religion — Jewish, Turk- 
ish, or Christian — a confederation of sects, under a politico-ecclesiastic head." 

I will proceed to define some of these terms. It is truly alleged 
that- most controversies are mere logomachies ; and that perspicuous 
and precise definitions would settle a great number of them can not 
be doubted. — 

To narrow the debate on this proposition, the Roman church claims 
universal homage on the plea of unity and uniformity, as resulting 
from infallibility. Every other church is mutable and fallible : but 
she is immutably the same ! Why 1 Because infallible. Infallible in 
what respect? Infallible in faith and in morals; but not in discipline. 
BuX where shall this infallibility be found ] In any individual per- 
son ] No ; nor in all individual persons taken singly. But she is 
infallible in her faith and morals, as written in her creed ! The Pro- 
testant church is then just as infallible as the Roman church : for her 
faith and moral code are written in a book which is the fountain of 
all moral truth. We must then define faith : and let me ask, what 
does the gentleman mean by faith ? persuasion of a fact, doctrine, or 
opinion 1 It cannot include every thing. If faith mean with him, 
something in the head or heart ; then, where is the pre-eminence of the 
o2 21 



162 DEBATE ON THE 

Roman church, whose members individually are all fallible 1 and if it 
be faith as written in the creed : again, I would ask, where is the 
preeminence of the Roman church, over the English church 1 for she 
is as infallible in her creed as the Bible itself. 

The gentleman says, ' that the symbol of his faith is the apostles' 
creed.' If hat be the elements of his faith ; all Protestants believe it : 
but if he means doctrine, opinion, speculation ; then folios would not 
contain the differences. What is faith subjectively considered, but a 
belief in testimony, divine or human 1 and what is religious faith o&- 
jectively, but the Bible 1 Five words comprehend the order of things 
in regard to faith : 1st the fact, or the thing said or done — 2nd the 
testimony, concerning it — 3rd the belief of that testimony — 4th the 
feeling, consentaneous with that faith — and 5th the action, correspond- 
ing with that feeling. — These are the golden links, in that divine chain, 
which binds our hearts to God, and explains all the mysteries of the 
moral power of the remedial scheme. The gospel facts, as Paul 
sums them up, 1 Cor. xv. 1, 2, 3, which engross the whole, are the 
death, the burial and the resurrection of Jesus. The whole Protestant 
world believes these facts. England, Scotland, America — all Christen- 
dom believe, or acknowledge these great gospel facts. So far all are 
of one faith. The Romanist and Protestant here, are equally infallible 
as respects faith ! And do we not all acknowledge the same perfect 
moral code 1 But while there is, indeed, but one faith, there are many 
doctrines, opinions, and traditions ; and these are what make the 
" Bible" and the " One Faith" of the Bible of little or no account ! 
Hence, has not the Roman church, like the Jews, made void the law 
of God by her traditions 1 It is not because the scriptures do not 
contain the right faith : but because men have chosen to add to it 
folios of human opinions, that the divine faith has lost its power. 

It is a serious question, why is the Roman church infallible in faith 
and not in discipline 1 — in theory, and not in practice 1 in the head, 
and not in the heart l — Is it not of more value and importance, that 
she should be perfect in the order and moral discipline of her mem- 
bers ; than in the theory or doctrine of religion 1 She found that she 
never could make herself infallible — why then, does she choose to 
claim infallibility in the theory, and give it up in practice 1 Because 
her plea of infallibility on that ground, she well knew, she could not 
at all sustain ; and how well she can sustain it on other grounds will 
appear in the sequel. She has changed her discipline in every cen- 
tury ; and her theories and doctrines of order and government are as 
various as the Protestant sects. In the 19th century, she is not the 
same as in the 18th; nor in the 18th as in the 17th, nor in the 17th 
as in the 16th, &c. 

My friend has made concessions here, which I never expected from 
him. He has avowed principles, which, till within a few years, were 
unknown in the Roman Catholic church. I look upon this fact ae an 
evidence, that better days are coming. I could wish that the Roman Ca- 
tholic faith, under the mild genius of our institutions, might become so 
modified, as to be suited to the character of our republic ; especially 
to abandon the absurd pretension of infallibility, which indeed, she 
must do, if ever she can become American. 

But the Roman church is not united, nor uniform in this notion of 
infallibility. There are four theories and four parties on the question, 
where shall infallibility be found? The gentleman believes that the 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 163 

pope is as fallible as himself. This, I conceive, is not the common 
belief among Roman Catholics. The Jesuits, if I am rightly inform- 
ed, teach that infallibility must, of right, be in the head. Indeed, so 
I should reason: for what use would be an infallible body under a 
fallible head 1 and would not that be most unnatural 1 Is not the body 
subject to the head, naturally and necessarily] and ought not every 
body political and ecclesiastic, like the natural body, to be governed 
by its head ] — [Time expired.] 

Half past 3 o'olock, P. M. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

I would prefer, for the satisfaction of the audience, and to do the 
subject justice, to enter at once on the proposition of the infallibility 
of the Church. I should go over the ground, my learned opponent 
has traveled, and if permitted, should make a regular argument on 
the subjects to which he has alluded. My good friend is dissatisfied 
with himself for having made any concessions in favor of the purity 
of the popes, and he has re-examined, and found for the last ninety 
years but one saint in the calendar. If there was but one can- 
onized, does it follow that there was but one worthy ] There were 
many worthy. There have been many great and good men among 
the popes who have not been canonized. Rome is very particular 
whom she proposes as models for her children's imitation. She is 
anxious that theie should be no blemish in the splendor of holiness, 
no faded flower in her coronal. She must be so well assured by the 
evidence of facts and miracles of the eminent virtue with which it 
has pleased God to endow the subject whose life is examined with 
reference to this holy distinction, that she has appointed a personage in 
Rome, called the Devil's Advocate, whose duty it is when a candi- 
date is proposed for beatification, to rake up all he can against him, 
and thus prevent, not his entrance into heaven exactly, but the admis- 
sion of his name into the calendar of saints. So that, what an illustrious 
Protestant has said, " it is a miracle to prove a miracle at Rome," is 
in fact, a proverb in the Ancient City. 

Well, now, my friend says that it was necessary that there should 
be a Judas, — that he was mentioned in the Old Testament — his is a 
special case — unique. But my argument is so strong on this point, 
that I will give up even the strong case of Judas, and yet prevail. 
Even Peter, with oaths, denied the knowledge of his God and Savior 
Jesus Christ. The other apostles also abandoned him — a crime, be 
it noted, which the Novatians would have never pardoned. Ml this 
was foretold as well as the particular instance of Judas. So that, if 
he please, I will abandon this particular case, and argue as follows : 

Peter fell and was resuscitated ; the rest of the apostles fled ; they 
were ashamed, or afraid, of being thought the disciples of Christ. 
They were not, however, rejected. The gifts of God were without re- 
pentance in their regard, who having seen and conversed with the 
Word made Flesh, witnessed his miracles, and beheld the example 
of his virtues, were, therefore, to human judgment, less excusable 
for their desertion of the stricken Shepherd. W^hy may not, at least, 
equal mercy be extended, if not to the popes, who were in this re- 
spect less highly favored, at least, to the doctrine of truth which the 
apostles, and the popes were appointed to announce and to preserve 
among men ] Must God's holy law be broken to pieces, and truth 



164 DEBATE ON THE 

perish from the earth, because there have been bad men, like Aaron, 
who bow to the golden calf — to their passions,? It is believed by 
some to have been specially ordained by the good providence of God, 
that Rome, once the mistress of the entire Pagan world, should be 
forever the chief see of the Christian world ; thus verifying the almost 
prophetic words of one of her most gifted minds, " that the sun in 
his course cannot behold any thing greater." We are told a fine sto- 
ry about Constantia — like some less ancient rivals of the see of Pe- 
ter, she was three hundred years too late to establish any claim to 
the headship of the church, and especially by such means, in favor 
of Constantinople. Now, my friends, why did Constantia want to 
have the head of Paul at Constantinople'? It was because it was 
known that from the beginning Rome had possessed the prescriptive 
right to the chief honor and authority, not only in the temporal, but 
likewise in the spiritual kingdom. The seat of temporal power had 
been transferred to Constantinople; but the see of ecclesiastical su- 
premacy was still at Rome, and like another Queen of lofty and arro- 
gant pretensions, Constantia aspired to reign supreme, in Religion as 
well as in Politics. According to the ideas of that time which show in 
what veneration relics were held, she could set up no good claim for 
the spiritual independence of Constantinople, unless she had the head 
of St. Paul brought from Rome, and in this she failed. 

Gibbon says, and it is one of the few sterling truths he ever said, 
(though it is a bull) that Rome would have perished amidst so many 
revolutions, if she had not had within her a vital principle. This 
reminds me of what my worthy antagonist said in the Presbyterian 
church, quoting a French physician, during the session of the College 
of Teachers, " that we might live forever if we could live without 
eating." Rome lives, and is likely to live forever, whether by po- 
rous absorption of vital aliment, or by the " vis medicatrix Naturae" 
which expels all peccant humors, it is unimportant to enquire. 

Now I cannot see the applicability of the long passage from Gib- 
bon, containing the answer of the Pope to Constantia. They tell a 
similar story, and I believe Protestants credit it, about Julian's un- 
dertaking to give the lie to the predictions of the prophets and of 
Christ, regarding the temple of Jerusalem, by rebuilding that struc- 
ture consigned by God to endless destruction. Globes of fire, as his- 
torians say, issued from the foundations, and so terrified the work- 
men as to compel them to desist. I think it likely that this may have 
happened, but, like the story of Constantia, it is no article of faith. 

Now we come to the important doctrine of infallibility. It is a 
doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, that, when the whole world 
was in error, when every thing was adored as God, save God himself, 
and vice kept pace with error, the Almighty, pitying this darkness, 
sent his Son, Christ Jesus, the Word made flesh, into this world to 
teach and to redeem mankind. Jesus Christ was God, equal to the 
Father in every divine perfection. He possessed infinite wisdom to 
choose, and infinite power to use the means necessary to the accrrri- 
plishment of the great Task imposed on him by his Heavenly Father. 
He performed miracles. He stood over the grave of a putrified corse, 
and cried, " Lazarus come forth," and the dead man arose and went 
home with his extacied sisters. He placed his hand on the bier in 
which was borne the only son of the widow of Nairn, and the mourn- 
er's tears were dried in that son's living embrace. He gave hearing 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 165 

to the deaf, he opened the eyes of the blind, he healed the paralytic 
The evidence of these wonders was such that even the skeptical Jew 
was convinced, and all the people exclaimed that man had never 
done the like. 

When he had thus, by miracles, proved himself to be God, as it was 
no part of his divine plan to remain always in a human form, nor to 
visit any other nation, than Judea, although all the nations of the earth 
throughout all ages were to have the gospel preached unto them, he 
chose twelve men, whom he diligently instructed, as friends, and not 
as servants, in all the mysteries of the kingdom. These he sent, as his 
apostles, to preach the gospel to every creature. But before he sent 
them, he assured them that he would abide with them forever. His 
words were these: "All power is given me in heaven and in earth. 
Going therefore teach ye all nations ; baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to 
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and behold I 
am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." Matt, 
xxviii. 9, 20. And that they might be infallible, he breathed on 
them, saying, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost, who will teach you 
all truth, and bring all things to your mind whatsoever I have said 
to you." John xiv. 26. " The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot 
Teceive because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him ; but you shall 
know him, because he shall abide with you and be in you." St. John 
xiv. 17. This is the reason why the Catholic church believes in infalli- 
bility : If every man enjoys the privilege of taking the bible according 
to his own understanding thereof, the Catholic should not be molested 
in the exercise of a common right. He does take the bible for his 
guide, and strong as any in Holy Writ is the proof he finds therein, 
for the doctrine of an infallible authority established by Christ in his 
church. The Savior tells the apostles, that he will be with them all 
days — and says, " he that heareth you heareth me : and he that 
despiseth you, despiseth me : and he that despiseth me, despiseth him 
that sent me," &c. In the name of God, why did Jesus Christ say 
these words, and inspire his disciples to record them, if we were 
not to believe them 1 I cannot conceive how it is possible that we 
should take these, his most emphatic declarations, to mean any thing, 
but what they obviously signify. Why did St. Paul say that the 
church was the " pillar and ground of truth," if this pillar and that 
foundation were to give way as soon as the apostles died, that is to say 
in a few short years 1 Why did the apostle command all to obey their 
prelates, if the whole edifice of truth would give way as soon as he 
had disappeared from the earth? No, my friends, of the kingdom of 
Jesus Christ there shall be no end, until all nations shall be gathered 
into the one fold under one shepherd : until we all meet in the unity 
of faith : and not as bishop Home says, jumbling together an undi- 
gested heap of contrarieties and jarring sects into the same mass, and 
making the old chaos the plan of the new reformation. 

I might dissert for hours on this subject, but I am compelled to 
leave off here ; yet I beg my Protestant, I sincerely and from my 
heart say, most respected fellow-citizens to reflect on these matters, 
that they may not believe the misrepresentations of our doctrines-, which 
they have too often heard, as if we had no good, scriptural grounds for 
our faith. Such misrepresentation has done us much injury. It has 



166 DEBATE ON THE 

been indulged in so long that I do not wonder at the horror of Catho- 
lics, it has, in many instances, inspired. To this illiberal feeling mul 
titudes of Protestants are superior, I could almost say they are utterly 
incapable of it — they abhor it. Some of them are among the best 
friends I have in this city. And it is not the only one where I am 
proud to recognize them, and send them this humble tribute of my es- 
teem and grateful reminiscence. 

My friend said I had made concessions ; he too has been misinform- 
ed, and knows more of our doctrine since the commencement of this 
discussion, than he ever knew before. He will allow me to say that 
I understand something of my own religion, and that as I can neither 
add to nor detract from it, I exhibit its own portrait, and not a carica- 
ture, and still less a flattering likeness. He says, the Protestants be- 
lieve in the apostles' creed. Would to God they would even believe 
in one single article of that creed ! "I believe in the Holy Catholic 
church." But they do not : or one other article, in the same creed, in 
the true sense of the words ; " I believe in Jesus Christ." 

Suppose I tell a man that I believe him ; but persuade him to his 
face, in spite of his repeated asseverations, that he did not say what he 
says he did. Do I believe him 1 Suppose I say I love him, and yet 
do all I can to his injury, are my protestations what they ought to be 1 
So it is with Jesus Christ. If you believe in him, you obey his words 
and hear his church which he commands you to hear. It is vain to 
say, I believe in Jesus Christ, unless we follow him also, and keep his 
commandments. If we do not so, we are hypocrites, or, at least, we 
deceive ourselves ; and if we despise his church, he assures us most 
positively, that we despise himself. " If any man," says he, " will 
not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publi- 
can." Matt, xviii. 17. 

But we are told that the meaning of " the church" is the whole con- 
gregation of the faithful scattered through the earth. If so, must I 
traverse the whole earth and appeal to every individual believer for an 
explanation of the law, or a defence of my innocence ? This is 
clearly impossible. Whereas Christ's injunction supposes the exist- 
ence of a tribunal, which he commands me to hear, as I would hear 
him ; which he commands me to hear, under the penalty of being 
reputed a heathen and a publican. If this tribunal could pronounce 
falsely, would Christ have commanded me thus to hear and obey it, 
as I should hear and obey himself? I hope the desired answer will 
be given to this question. 

Again, my friend says all Protestants believe the apostles' creed. 
But suppose a gentleman of the Unitarian denomination should say, 
I believe in the apostles' creed — would a Protestant of another denom- 
ination credit it 1 A Unitarian believes in Jesus Christ, but how does 
he believe in him, when he denies his divinity 1 Here is the vice and 
error of the Protestant system. They all say, I believe Christ, I be- 
lieve the bible ; when they make Christ and the bible teach the most 
contrary doctrines ; and all think they are going to heaven — all think 
they believe the same Savior. Alas ! how many souls has not this 
error lured from the only path that conducts to eternal life ! " There 
is a way which seemeth to a man to be right," says the holy scripture, 
"but the end thereof leads down to hell." The sects of Protestants 
are diametrically opposed to each other. They are at greater anti- 



BOMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 167 

podes than the two Indies. Two men of different sects will meet : 
says one, " Do you believe in Christ ?" " Yes." " But you do not be- 
lieve in him as God ?" "No." "No matter, we are both good believers." 
Again, two others — " Do you believe in Christ 1" " Yes ?" " But you 
not believe in a hell ?" " No." " No matter, we are both sound ortho- 
dox christians." Or again, " Do you believe in Christ 1" " Yes." "But 
you don't believe in baptism" — and so it goes. 

Now Jesus Christ cannot contradict himself: he cannot say things 
incompatible with each other, as that two and two make four ; and 
two and two make five. My friends, I come here not to attack other 
sects. I come only to defend the truth. Of all religions, all teach- 
ing, as they do, contrary doctrines, one only can be right. If one 
only can be true, all others must be untrue. Have you ascertained 
which is that true one 1 And if so, how have you ascertained it] To 
whatever denomination you may belong, your Protestant neighbor, as 
enlightened, as conscientious and as pious in his own opinion as you 
are, thinks you have embraced dangerous error, and Jesus Christ 
sounds in your ears the dreadful words, " He that believeth not" — 
not what he thinks is right, but what is right — " shall be damned" 
Mark xvi. 16. — [Time expired.] 

Four o'clock, P. M, 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

I hope we shall better understand each other. The question be- 
tween Protestants and Roman Catholics, on the subject of infallibility 
as respects the faith, is usually propounded in the following form: 
4 Is there an infallible rule of faith ?' Both parties, answer in the af- 
firmative. Then, ' Where shall it be found?' Each party then sets about 
defining and wrestling about this said infallible rule. The Protestant 
says, the bible alone is his infallible rule ; and the Romanist says the 
church, or the bible explained by the church, is his infallible rule ! 
Thus the Protestant rests upon the bible and the Romanist upon the 
church — neither of which make men infallible. We apprehend there 
is a sophism some where in the phraseology : for both parties have 
exhausted folios on this subject and seem often to have retired from 
the arena equally perplexed. My antagonist seems to be much in 
advance of me, and sometimes so far in my rear as to be out of sight. 
Meanwhile, he will please not to forget that it is my province, at least, 
to sketch out my own method of discussion, and lead the way. My 
last speech is certainly yet unanswered. 

I do not choose the phraseology which has been popular in some 
discussions, on the subject of the rule of faith. There is too much 
ambiguity, too much room for logomachy in some of these definitions. 
There is, in strict propriety, no infallible rule of faith. Nor is it pos- 
sible there can be : for men and angels have erred under all rules. I 
wish to be understood. The terms fallible and infallible do not at all 
apply to things : they only apply to persons. We may have a per- 
fect and complete — or a sufficient rule : but we cannot have an infal- 
lible one. The fallibility, or the infallibility is in the application of 
the rule — not in the rule itself. The mechanician may have a perfect 
rule ; and yet err in measuring any superficies. It is not possible in 
mechanics, nor in morals, nor in religion, to have a rule which will 
prevent error : so long as those who use it are free and fallible agents. 
As Paul said on an occasion, not exactly similar, we may here say : 



168 DEBATE ON THE 

4 If there could have been a law given to free agents, which would 
have precluded error, verily God would have given it. But as he 
has not given any such law, therefore, there has been error in heaven 
as on earth. Angels fell and Adam apostatized. I own, it may be 
said, that in common parlance, we figuratively talk of an infallible 
rule. I admit that we do, and that is the reason, when we come to 
debate the matter, the parties are confounded : for the bible alone, or 
the bible on the table ; and the church alone, or the church and the 
bible together, have made no one free from error. Therefore, there 
is no infallible rule in truth : but we have a perfect rule, and if we 
apply it perfectly, it will make us perfect. So far, then, as infallibi- 
lity is concerned, if there be truth in these remarks, both parties are 
again equal. Our rule is the bible alone. The Roman Catholic 
rule contains one hundred and thirty five large folio volumes 
superadded to the bible, and the apocrypha ! These are composed 
of the following parts and parcels : 1st Apostolical Fathers 35 folios, 
2nd Eight volumes of Decretals, 3rd Ten volumes of Bulls of the 
Popes; 4th Thirty one volumes of Canons and Decrees of Councils ; 
5th Fifty one folios of the Acta Sanctorum — Acts of the Saints, amount- 
ing in all to, — one hundred and thirty five volumes folio. Our rules, 
then, differ exceedingly in point of length, breadth and thickness. The 
Roman Catholic rule is exceedingly unwieldy. It requires a whole 
council to move it, and apply it to a single opinion. Ours is, at least, 
portable. — But still the phrase rule of faith is not Protestant. The 
bible is the faith ; and that testimony is the rule and measure of our 
belief: for in logical truth testimony is the only proper rule of faith. 
However, the question is not strictly, what is the rule of faith ? 

We both agree that the true reason of infallibility is inspiration. ] 
was glad to hear this noble concession from my learned opponent. 
Jesus Christ was able to give a perfect rule. He therefore inspired 
twelve apostles to form that rule, and enjoined us to hear them. So 
far, there is no difference between us. We both have a perfect rule, 
and that perfect rule is the bible ; and the reason of its perfection is 
its inspiration. But where is the inspiration of the one hundred and 
thirty five folios 7 Does it require this immense library to make us 
understand the bible 1 However, if my friend can establish their in- 
spiration, and show that Jesus Christ has spoken in these volumes ; 
we will adopt them without controversy. But there is a want of uni- 
formity in the Catholic faith (even with the help of these volumes :) 
and hence the four sects mentioned just before I sat down, on the 
question, where shall this infallibility be found : for after all the one 
hundred and thirty five volumes lying on the table, are no better than 
the bible lying on the table, the Roman Catholics being judges. — They 
must have an infallible interpreter of these volumes. Where shall he be 
found 1 " Some say that infallibility resides in the head of the church : 
2nd, Others, that it resides in a general council, in which the church 
is represented : although such a general council never sat. 3rd, Others 
argue, that it lies neither in the pope, nor in the council separately : 
but in the two combined — a 4th party says that it lies neither in the 
pope, nor in the council, nor in both : but in the whole church, re- 
sponding to any question. Now might we not call these four parties ? 
Do our controversies about atonement, or election &c. make us more 
truly sects, than do these different interpretations make parties in the 
Roman church ] But where shall infallibility be found 1 If this can- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 189 

not be shown, it is of no more use to us in time of need, than a 
mountain of gold in the bottom of the ocean ; or a field of diamonds in 
the moon. I hope the gentleman will clearly ascertain this point, and 
make us all understand where we shall find this infallibility. We 
would like to know, how the combination of a given number of falli- 
bles will make one infallible being ; or, by what laws of neutraliza- 
tion the fallibility of every member of the church is destroyed, and 
the whole mass becomes infallible. But if the infallibility of a dogma 
depends on inspiration, what is the use of councils, unless the pro- 
mise of infallibility be made exclusively to councils 1 

But I have no necessity for the argument which I had framed on 
this point. The bishop attributes infallibility to inspiration — not to 
combination : So do Protestants. Therefore on this cardinal point we 
seem more likely to agree, than I expected. Protestants have then 
an inspired creed, and this gives to them all the infallibility, which 
Roman Catholics claim to themselves : but should any one say that 
the majority of a council constitutes infallibitity, then we should have 
to enquire into the reasons of the infallibility of said majority; and 
for the sake of some of that class, I would here state that these ma- 
jorities often are very lean minorities of the church. The council of 
Trent debated eighteen years, during which time she held twenty five 
sessions. In one session there were but forty eight bishops, and they 
not the most learned. A majority of these determined that the apo- 
crypha was inspired, and that it with the Vulgate Old and New Tes- 
tament; was of paramount authority in the church. Twenty five 
bishops, a majority of forty eight, represent the whole christian com- 
munity ! The question now is, were these men inspired while they 
were voting this dogma 1 ? I wish the bishop to state his views on this 
point clearly, if indeed he thinks that inspiration is at all an attribute 
or a gift promised to majorities however lean. 

But, my friends, when you have got this ponderous creed from the 
decisions of general councils, must it not be interpreted? Must not 
the dogma of a majority be also interpreted! And who is to interpret 
them 1 Every man for himself? Then are you Protestants ; or, Ro- 
manists working by the Protestant rules. After all, I see nothing 
gained by all this expensive and ponderous machinery. Is not every 
Roman Catholic obliged to judge for himself on the meaning of every 
dogma, and whether he ought to receive or reject it"? Then, I ask, 
are not the inspired verses of the Old and New Testament as easily 
interpreted, as the inspired decrees of these councils 1 Did not the Spirit 
that inspired the apostles, teach as clearly, as the fathers in their coun- 
cils 1 I wish to understand the bishop more accurately on these points. 

The gentleman (I regret to state it) spoke of Protestants as hating 
the Roman Catholics, from a supposed ignorance of their creed. For 
myself, and for Protestants generally, I disavow the idea, and the 
language of hatred towards Romanists, as such. We feel the same 
humanity and benevolence towards Roman Catholics, as men, as to 
Protestants. We always discriminate between tenets and men, a 
system or theory, and those who hold it. With open arms, I would 
welcome to our shores the oppressed of all nations, Romanists and 
Protestants. I would extend to the Roman Catholic every facility to 
improve his condition by immigration into this favored land, provided 
only I were free from all suspicion, that his faith in the pope and 
P 32 



170 DEBATE ON THE 

mother-church, would not induce him or his children to wrest from me 
or mine, that freedom and liberty which I would gladly participate 
with him. I oppose his religion ; because, I sincerely think it enslaves 
him, and would enslave me, if it had the power. But, iu all this there 
is no hatred to Roman Catholics as men. We are devoted to American 
institutions, because they are humane. For the sake of Romanists, as 
well as Protestants, we desire to see them permanent. We fear the 
exclusive, proscriptive, and despotic system of Romanism ; but we 
feel nothing but benevolence to Roman Catholics. 

My worthy opponent has done us great honor in saying, that he 
knows many excellent Protestants, whom he esteems highly as good 
men. Of course, then, they may be saved out of the Roman Catholic 
church. If so, what is the difference between his infallible and our 
fallible faith ? I cannot find time to reply to any remarks of my oppo- 
nent, not made in reference to my arguments. — [Minus 5 minutes.] 

Half-past 4 o'clock, P. M, 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

I shall reply to what has been said, and then pursue my own line 
of argument. The Catholic church claims to have an infallible rule 
of faith and an infallible code of morals. The former would be of 
little use without the latter. So intimate is the connection between 
sound faith and sound morals, that we hold that if the Catholic code 
of morals is vicious, she is not infallible in doctrine. If the working 
of her code of morals is proved to lead, or to have led, into vice, she 
is not infallible. This never has been proved, nor ever can it be. 
But the contrary to this has been proved, and its proof is cumulative. 
The darkest ages furnish some of its brightest illustrations. She 
does not pretend to be infallible in discipline, in the sense of its im- 
mutability. The gentleman confounds discipline with morals, and 
this want of clearness of ideas is the source of the entire difficulty. 
Discipline, I think, I have explained. It regulates the dress of the 
clergy, the liturgical language, the time of singing hallelujah, the 
mode of shaving the head, or making the tonsure, the giving of the 
cup to the laity, the use of leavened, or unleavened bread for the sa- 
crament, selection of days for feasts and fasts, &c. &c. The church 
must have the power of changing in these respects — in other words 
of adapting her discipline to times, and countries. And all this, so 
far from being an imperfection is a proof of her perfection, of her 
having been established by Jesus Christ to teach, and guide, and sanc- 
tify all nations for ever. I did not state the crude proposition, which 
the gentleman has attributed to me, viz. that the pope is as fallible as 
I am. I would not compare myself thus to him. I occupy an humble 
station compared to his, and I am conscious of the want of those em- 
inently distinguished qualities of head and heart which compose his 
character. He has grace and lights which I have not. The gentle- 
man tells Protestants a flattering tale, that they have as infallible a 
rule, as Catholics. This is keeping the word of promise to the ear 
and breaking it to the heart. Does he not in the same speech, ac- 
knowledge that their fallible opinions, doctrines, traditions make their 
own rule, the bible, vain and nothing worth ? The bible is a dead let- 
ter — all pretend to find their conflicting tenets in it. Where is then, 
the infallible rule ] Does he not charge Protestants as well as Cath- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 171 

olics with error. And why 1 The gentleman said, where is the use 
of the head, without the body 1 I ask where is the use of a body 
without a head 1 And he said, if the body regulates the head it is 
anomalous. But what is it that sends vitality to the head 1 Is it not 
the heart with its healthful pulses and its quickening current ] The 
pope is the head — the council is the heart — and I have no objection 
to his calling the laity the members, to continue the figure. While 
there is no schism in the members, no separation of the head or of the 
heart, all is soundness and life — so in the church — pope, pastors, and 
laity. United we stand, divided you fall. The true theory of the 
church, like that of the human body, is union. Ask not, does the 
heart, alone, or the head alone, or the members alone contain the vital 
principle — they sympathize ; they live and move and have their being 
together, God seems to address himself to the head and to the heart 
in the revealed definitions of his essence. " I am who am," and " God 
is love," one of these definitions is for the reason, the other for the 
affections ; one for the Old Testament, the other for the New. Both, 
however, come from the same source and tend to define Him — Life, 
Wisdom and Love. 

The division of truth into objective and subjective is correct — but 
objective revealed truth is the whole truth revealed by God, wherever 
found and in whatever manner conveyed. What is the use of this, 
without subjective truth, or our own knowledge and conviction that 
we possess objective truth, and that we are sure of possessing it? Of 
this, the Protestant, who rejects authority in religion, and pretends to 
find out religion for himself, from a book, which he acknowledges, fal- 
lible men handed to him, can never be sure. The fact, the testimony, 
the belief of the testimony, the feeling consentaneous with the belief, 
and the correspondent action, are all human faith and natural feeling, 
struggling, and striving for some higher and better gifts, which it can- 
not attain without infallible assurance, without the Catholic rule. What 
is the testimony that might be deceived itself and might deceive me 1 

He says we Catholics have a very broad rule — 135 folios. No such 
thing. W"e have a quite convenient pocket-rule. It is the pearl of 
great value — a diamond, with which we cut the brittle glass of mere 
human creeds in pieces, and with which we solve every difficulty. 
It is this : "I believe in the Holy Catholic church." They were the 
apostles — he was Christ who gave it to us. It does not suppose ig- 
norance, or servile acquiescence. It lifts us above error, giving us a 
divine warrant for every tenet of our faith, and directing our under- 
standings and hearts to God, who speaks to us by his church. I 
hope I did not understand my friend correctly this morning, but if I 
have he has uttered horrid blasphemy. I understood him to say that 
God could not have given a perfect rule (to make man infallible, and 
prevent him from error.) 

Mr. Campbell explained. He had said that God could not create 
a hill without a valley— could not make man a free agent and bind him. 

Bishop Purcell. Could not God have created the angels so that 
they could not fall into sin 1 

Mr. Campbell. There can be no virtue nor vice, without liberty 
of choice : neither in man nor in angel. 

Bishop Purcell. My friend has said that God could not have cre- 
ated angels or men virtuous without making them free to sin. The 
angels of heaven are not free to do wrong, are they not virtuous ] 



172 » DEBATE ON THE 

Mr. Campbell. If such is the nature of angels, they are virtuous 
by nature. Perfect liberty consists in acting in unison with our na- 
ture. 

Bishop Purcell. Then the angels are virtuous without being free. 
If the rebel angels were virtuous by nature, how did they happen to 
fall 1 And could not God have made the angels who are now good, 
by nature, or by grace, such from creation ] I will now continue my 
argument. It does not exceed the power of God to make man infal- 
lible. Christ was infallible; for he was God. Now if he -could 
make twelve men infallible, as Mr. C. admits the apostles were, why 
could he not perpetuate the same power in favor of his entire church, 
since such infallible authority to teach his true doctrine is as necessa- 
ry now, as it was at any former time 1 

Now I have another strong argument here — it is old with us, but 
suggested anew by reading one of the Protestant papers, from New 
York. It is the Palladium, and my friend seems to know the editor, 
for he himself has given occasion for the very article in question. The 
argument is this : If tradition be fallible, and it was not known for 
300 years, what books of the bible were genuine, and what spu- 
rious, how shall we ascertain that we have the bible 1 How shall we 
ever know that the book is the book of God 1 The making of the ca- 
non or list of books composing the inspired volume, was a difficulty 
yielding to but few others in magnitude, during the first four hundred 
years of Christianity, when, if we must believe my friend, infallibility 
had departed, with the last of the apostles, to heaven. How then can 
we be sure that our present canon is correct ] Catholics can be sure 
on this vital point, for they have the voucher of an infallible guardian 
of the holy deposit, for its correctness; but Protestants, who have no 
such tribunal to enlighten them, how can they be sure 1 Catholics 
hold that infallibility was promised to the church by Jesus Christ. Its 
testimony is heard in a general council, or in the pope's decision in 
which all assent. The church can subsist without a general council. 
General councils are not essential — though frequently of use, because, 
though we all believe without exception, that the pope's decision, in 
which, after it has been duly made known, all the bishops of the Ca- 
tholic world acquiesce, is infallible, still the decision of a general 
council declares in a more impressive and solemn, though not more au- 
thentic, manner, the belief of the Catholic world on the contested doc- 
trine, and thus more effectually proscribe the contrary error. The 
celebrated Protestant, Leibnitz, remarked that there could be no cer- 
tainty of a correct decision on religious matters, equal to that afforded 
by the decision of a general council. The four sects Mr. C. speaks 
of all agree in the belief of the infallibility of the church representa- 
tive and of the church responsive ; if I must employ these technical 
terms — and as he asks " could not the Holy Ghost, who inspired the 
apostles, teach as clearly as the Fathers in their councils ?" I answer, 
4 Yes,' and he has so taught us to "hear the church," for, no prophe- 
cy of scripture is of any private interpretation. 

Let me now vindicate the humblest Roman Catholic of my flock, or 
of the world, from the charge of pinning his faith to the sleeve of any 
man, or of surrendering his conscience to the keeping of his priest. 
Catholics do not believe because the priest tells them to believe, but be- 
cause they consider him to be the faithful interpreter of Christ and the 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 173 

organ of the church, hut should he dissent from the oracles of God and 
his ecclesiastical superiors, that moment they would quit him. They 
see his teaching accords with that which they have heard from others, 
which they have read, as the Catholic doctrine. If they doubt, they 
ask other priests, or the bishop. Thus while they know the priest to 
be orthodox, they hear him, or rather the church, they hear God and 
they believe God. And in this there is no servility. The faith he 
teaches and the moral law he expounds, have both come from God, and 
to God they owe and pay their vows. My friend misapprehends me. 
I did not say that Protestants hated Catholics. I say that some Pro- 
testants are often prejudiced against them, and I wondered they are not 
more so. If he could prove the odious proposition so long before you, 
the Catholic church would be a monster. I am sorry my friend has 
misunderstood the doctrines of the Catholics, and I am glad of the op- 
portunity which is thus afforded me, of coming before the public and 
showing what are our real sentiments. 

I come to the doctrine of infallibility again. I will begin my argu- 
ment this evening, and conclude perhaps to-morrow morning. I beg 
leave to read what I have myself written on this subject : 

Whoever reflects upon the countless varieties of human character, 
the ignorance of some men, the prejudices of others, the passions of 
all, will scarcely require that we should expend much time or labor to 
prove, that as long as men are commanded to form their religion 
for themselves, even though the book they receive for their guide 
should be the plainest in its language that divine wisdom could bestow, 
the sources of error will be never drained. No matter how pure the 
doctrine of that book, how holy its precepts, how luminous its evi- 
dences, occasions will occur, when these doctrines will be contested, 
these precepts denied, these beaming evidences obscure to the pride, 
the voluptuousness, and the love of independence, inherent in a per- 
verted nature. Man, under the influence of such feelings, will read, 
will write ; he will communicate his doubts and impart his prejudices 
to others ; he will originate new creeds, and form new sects ; he will 
raise altar against altar, and desk against desk ; nor will any one, 
consistently with Protestant principles, have a right to ask him why 
he does so. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, when the right 
of forming religion, every man for himself, and the bible for us all, 
was first promulgated, the fierce self-constituted apostle sounded a 
deafening peal of defiance, and denounced all authority in religious 
concerns as spiritual tyranny. " Read the scriptures !" he vociferated 
to the astonished crowd of wise or foolish, learned or unlearned, that 
thronged to hear him. " Read the scriptures, and judge for yourselves : 
your reason and the spirit will enable you to understand them, as eas- 
ily as you can discern hot from cold, or sweet from bitter. Read the 
scriptures : they that run may read. Judge for yourselves !" They 
did read, they did judge for themselves; and they decided against 
their apostles, and against one another ! 

" When hell," says an illustrious writer, " prepares some terrible 
calamity for mankind, it flings upon the earth a pregnant evil, consign- 
ing its development to time." The time for the development of this 
mischief was brief. The word was uttered, and it could not be re- 
called : the principle was established, which it was too late to rescind. 
The disciples of the new apostles, reading, judging, deciding, became 
p2 



174 DEBATE ON THE 

apostles themselves. They claimed the right their teachers exercised. 
They claimed it to change, as they had changed. The Lutherans, 
multitudes of them, became Calvinists ; Calvinists, Independents ; 
Independents, Anabaptists ; each sect the prolific parent of twenty 
others, all differing from one another, as much as each one differed 
from its parent — innovation. Mark now the inconsistency to which 
the evil working of this scheme reduced the first claimants of a right 
unheard of for fifteen centuries. " Obey !" they now cry aloud, with 
terror, " obey your superiors ; submit to the pastors whom God has 
appointed to rule the faithful. It is their duty to instruct you, yours 
to follow the guidance of their wisdom." " What," they exclaimed, 
" becomes of the subordination which the scriptures so frequently en- 
join, if each one can be the arbiter of his own belief? What becomes 
of humility, which religion so forcibly inculcates, if eve^individual 
presumes to be an oracle and a judge 1 What would become of civil 
law and social harmony and order, if the acts of our legislatures were 
left to the interpretation of every interested litigant 1 Forbear! for- 
bear !" Such was the restraint, as every one knows, which Luther 
was under the inevitable necessity of imposing on the first followers 
of his revolt, in order to counteract the effects of the disastrous prin- 
ciple of mental emancipation, so highly eulogized when it was first 
proclaimed, and received with so much enthusiasm, until it was found 
to be a very Babel of the confusion of all creeds — another name, or 
else a cloak, for deism and positive infidelity. When we reason on 
principles rightly understood, whose immediate bearings and remotest 
consequences have been exposed to the examination of the reflecting 
world, for the last three hundred years, these arguments are as con- 
clusive to-day, as they were when first urged ; and when the right of 
any individual to believe whatever errors he honestly conceives to be 
truths revealed in scripture, is contested, he may say to his accusers, 
in the eloquent language of the Protestant remonstrants to the synod 
of Dort (itself Protestant), which had infringed their privileges in this 
respect: "Why exact that our inspiration, or our judgment, should 
yield to your opinion'? The opinion of any society, our apostles, the 
first reformers, declared to be fallible; and, consequently, to exact 
submission to its dictates, they, with great consistency, defined to be ' 
tyranny. Thus they decided with regard to the church of Rome ; and 
you, yourselves, have sanctioned their decision. Why, therefore, ex- 
ercise a domination over us, which you stigmatized as tyranny in a 
church, compared to whose greatness you dwindle into insignificance. 
If resistance to the decisions of our pastors be a crime, then let us 
wipe out the stain of our origin, and run back together to the fold of 
Catholicity, which you and we have abandoned. If such resistance 
be no crime, why require of us a submission which we do not owe 
you. Allow us to differ from you, as you do from the parent church." 
From the unanswerable logic of this remonstrance, the conclusion 
follows irresistibly: 1. That every society formed on Protestant prin- 
ciples, being essentially fallible, none should assert the inconsistent 
pretension of controlling faith by authority, or of regulating creeds, 
under pretence of superior wisdom. 2. That no such society, and, 
therefore, no individual, in such society, can be sure of being in the 
right, as long as his Protestant neighbor, with as many resources of 
information, and as piously inclined as himself, has embraced the very 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 175 

contrary of his opinion. 3. That as the entire system is based on the 
possibility of each one's being - mistaken, where the most learned and 
pious have adopted such opposite conclusions, no one can ever make 
an act of divine faith, which is incompatible with uncertainty, and 
much more so with error. 4. That, as long as such a principle is up- 
held, there is no hope of union, no security ; consequently, that either 
the whole system is false, or some expedient of union and unity must 
be discovered, to induce any conscientious and rational inquirer after 
truth, to believe that the Protestant society exemplifies the efficacy of 
the prayer of Christ for his disciples, the night before he suffered, that 
" they may be made perfect in one." We entreat our readers seriously 
to look into the different religions professing to have been founded by 
Jesus Christ, and seriously ask themselves the question, in which of 
all these, that " perfect oneness" (which, better than all other proofs, 
establishes the divinity of the Son of God, and convinces the entire 
world how much his heavenly Father loved him, and those whom he 
had given to him) may be found. Let not this inquiry be neglected, 
nor yet performed lightly : eternal life or death may be the consequence 
of its good or bad prosecution. 

Error in religion, when it results from the neglect of sincere and 
prayerful enquiry, is criminal. This no intelligent Christian will de- 
ny. God is as essentially the God of truth, as he is the God of vir- 
tue. He can no more sanction error, than he can tolerate vice. His 
right is as absolute to the submission of the understanding, as to the 
obedience of the will ; and as he, who violates one commandment 
will not be saved for the observance of the rest, so he that rejects 
one truth, which Almighty God has revealed — not that w r e may ex- 
amine, contest, adopt or reject — but that we may believe it, has lost 
the merit of saving faith. It is to fix the otherwise perpetual varia- 
tions of the human mind, and secure the anchor of our faith, not in 
the moving sands of man's vacillating judgments and uncertain opin- 
ions, but by lodging it deeply and indissolubly in the rock which the 
Divine Architect has made the foundation of his church, and against 
which the winds of error and the rain of dissolving scandal will rage 
and beat in vain, that the Word made Flesh vouchsafed to become the 
Light of the world. 

The misfortune of the great majority of mankind at the present 
day, is not so much a blind fanatical attachment, (bad as this is) to 
the sect in which they chanced to be born, or were first instructed, 
as a certain latitude of principle, which has obtained the specious 
name of liberality, and which resolves itself into a fatal and unrea- 
sonable indifference to all religions, true or false. The infidel who 
has had but too frequent occasion to exult at the success of a wily 
system of hostility to revealed truth, aifects to be unable to restrain 
his delight at beholding variety pervading the religious, as well 
as the physical world. Diversity of creeds is as pleasing to his eye, 
as the discrepancy of features in the human countenance. Incapable 
of reasoning, out of the sphere of matter, of which it is his inverted 
ambition to be a part, he holds the different religions professed by 
men to be so many institutions, prescribing for each country a uni- 
form manner of honoring God in public; all founded and having their 
peculiar reasons in the climate, the mode of government, the genius 



176 DEBATE ON THE 

of the people, or in some other local cause, which renders one form 
of religion preferable, for them, to another. 

The conclusion to be drawn from this doctrine, in as much as it 
levels all distinctions between truth and falsehood, good and evil, is 
humiliating to reason — but the infidel, for once consistent, recoils not 
before it : the following is his language — " Sincerely profess, piously 
practise the religion of the country in which you live. In other words, 
born in a pagan country, adore its gods — sacrifice to Jupiter, to Mars, 
to Priapus, or to Apollo. In Egypt, you will render divine honors 
to the sacred ox, and the crocodile ; in Phenicia, you will pass your 
children through the fires of Moloch ; in one country, you will im- 
molate human victims to your idol ; in another, you will humbly bow 
before a block of marble, or of wood — before an animal, fossil, or a 
plant. Be not afraid ; God will not send one man to heaven for hav- 
ing been born in Rome, nor another to hell for having been born in 
Constantinople. Therefore, in the latter place you will cry, 4 God is 
God and Mahomet is his prophet ;' and in the former, you will ana- 
thematise the impostor. A Christian in Europe, a Mussulman in 
Persia, an Idolater in Congo, on the banks of the Ganges an adorer 
of Vishnou, let not truth dictate the choice of your religion, but 
chance — let not reason decide, but the measurement of a degree of 
latitude, or longitude. Your credulous parent paid divine honors to 
an onion ; preserve this domestic worship — a son can never do wrong 
in following the religion of his father." But all this, it will be said, 
is unworthy of God and degrading to man. Not at all, he replies, 
all religions are equal — you were born in this, to practise another would 
be presumption. Such is the reasoning of the instructor of Emile, 
the theology of Hobbes, the profession of faith of the author of Zaire. 

" Chretienne dans Paris, Mussulmane en ces lieux, 
J'aurois avec la Grece adore les faux Dieux." 

That the unbeliever should thus eat promiscuously of the fruit of 
the tree of good and evil, life and death, should not create surprise. 
His joy consists in his being able to doubt of the validity of the proofs 
of religion — his only peace in life, his only security in death being 
made to depend on the delusive conviction of the improbability of ever 
arriving with certainty at the knowledge of revealed truth — the only 
truth, after all, it must be admitted, which it is necessary for man to 
know — and consequently the only truth which God is bound by all his 
essential and unchangeable attributes to enable us to attain. 

The basis of Protestant belief is, that the Scripture, this book of di- 
vine revelation, is the only rule of faith ; and that Jesus Christ having 
left on earth no living infallible authority to interpret it, every man is 
obliged to expound it, for himself, or in other words, to seek in it the 
religion, in which he is to live and by which he must be saved. His 
duty is to believe, what, it seems to Mm, this book clearly teaches and 
what as far as he has ascertained by subjecting it to the test of private 
examination, contradicts not his reason : and as no man has a right to 
say to another, " my reason is more vigorous, my judgment more sound 
than yours," it follows that every man should abstain from condemn- 
ing the interpretation of another and should consider all religions, at 
least, as good and as safe as his own. This is the infidel principle in 
disguise. The Deist takes the book of nature, the Protestant takes 
the Bible. The former reads in his book, that the Supreme Being must 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 177 

be pleased with the diversity of worship rendered him by his creatures, 
that no one is to be more accountable for errors which, however discord- 
ant in themselves, when softened and mellowed by being mingled with 
the errors of others, ascend to the deity in the grateful harmony of uni- 
versal praise. The latter, with this only difference that he contracts 
the range of the Infidel's misapprehension of religion, and for the book 
of the universe takes the bible, contends for the same erroneous prin- 
ciple. 

I need not shew its workings to this enlightened audience. They 
are ruinous in the extreme. — [Time expired.] 



WEDNESDAY, January 19th., Half-past 9 o'clock, A. M. 

Mr. Campbell rises— 

I appear before you this morning, fellow-citizens, in prosecution of 
my third proposition : and as this is the fifth day of the discussion, 
we must proceed with more despatch. We shall then advance direct- 
ly to that part of our proposition which speaks of Roman Catholic uni- 
ty and uniformity — only intimating to my hearers, that the bishop's 
remarks in his last speech upon the infallibility of tradition; and his 
effort to make the succession of the popes to rest upon the same au- 
thority with our faith in the bible, will be disposed of under proposi- 
tion the 6th. 

There are two bonds of union in all societies, general and special, — 
the first connects with the whole ; the second with a part, one or more 
individuals. We explain by examples : 1st. Take the Turkish em- 
pire. It is united on the divine authority of the Koran, and the divine 
mission of Mahomet. Acquiescence in these is the general bond of 
union. But 2nd. There are special bonds, such as unite the respective 
orders of Mahometans, as the orders of AH and Omar. These orders 
are distinct : they are united by a special construction of the Koran, 
Belief in the Koran is like general attraction : agreement in a particu- 
lar view of it is like attraction of cohesion. So among christians, 
Roman Catholics are united in one great generic idea which charac- 
terizes the whole sect. That is, the belief in a supreme head of the 
church on earth — a vicar of Christ : and add to that, the exclusive 
power and authority of the bishops. " Bishops are the bond of union 
amongst Catholics." The clergy, indeed, are the general bond of 
union amongst Romanists. But there are also special bonds and par- 
ties in that society, of which we shall take some notice. Protestants 
have a general bond of union in a generic consideration, as distinguish- 
ing as that of Mahometans and Roman Catholics. Acknowledging 
the bible alone, as the only perfect and sufficient rule of faith and man- 
ners, and the duty of all mankind to examine it for themselves, accord- 
ing to their respective abilities and opportunities, is the generic charac- 
teristic of Protestants. It is one of the general ideas, in which are 
united, and which unites all Protestants. But in the second place they 
are united in a most perfect and unanimous renunciation of that hier- 
archical authority which is the very essence of Roman Catholicism, 
I affirm that all Protestants are as perfectly united in these two grand 
principles, as the Roman Catholics are in that of a supreme head in 

23 



178 DEBATE ON THE 

Rome, and in the belief of tradition. Different saints and their pecu- 
liarities in the Roman Catholic church are specific bonds of union, at»d 
as much heads of orders, as are the leaders and views of Protestant 
sects. But the Protestants are as much united in acts of worship, as 
Roman Catholics. There are one or two Protestant sects, who differ 
in some unimportant matters, and are as repugnant to each other as are 
Jansenists and Jesuits in the Roman church : but all Protestant sects 
unite in several essential acts of religious worship — in the acknowl- 
edgment of the same code of morals, and in the positive institutions 
of Christianity, such as the Lord's day, the Lord's supper, baptism, 
prayer, praise, &c. Sects and differences exist which ought not : but 
still they harmonize as much in their general and special bonds of 
union, as do the Romanists themselves. What are the Augustinians, 
Dominicans, Franciscans, Jansenists, Jesuits, &c. but orders (or sects) 
called after different saints, and united under special bonds and peculi- 
arities 1 These parties in the Roman church are as pugnacious as Pro- 
testant parties : communing with each other not more frequently, nor 
more cordially than do Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, &c. They 
contend warmly against each other. Their quarrels are as rank and 
fierce as those of Protestants. But this is not all, my friends. Their 
society is divided on all the great orthodox points of Catholicism. 
Some say the pope of Rome is supreme in all things 'on earth, tempo- 
ral and spiritual, that he is a perfect representative of all the power of 
Christ, religious and political. A second class disavow these large 
claims — they say he is supreme only in ecclesiastical power : but that 
he is absolute lord of the church. A third class differ again on the ex- 
tent of that ecclesiastical supremacy. Some say the pope is above and 
beyond the councils and clergy ; and that he can annul them at plea- 
sure. A fourth party say he is subject to a general council, and is on- 
ly a general superintendent, a mere president, or executive officer — 
that the decrees of councils are the supreme law, and that the pope 
merely executes them. Here are four distinct sects, on the generic 
idea of the supreme head. Again there are four parties on the essen 
tial doctrine of infallibility. Some say it resides in the pope alone. 
Bellarmine says, (and he is the organ of a principal party,) " that the 
pope cannot possibly err." Gelasius says, " The church represented 
by a general council is above the pope." A third party say, that infal 
libility resides in both the pope and a. general council united. A fourth 
say, that all this does not constitute infallibility, but that when the 
whole church shall have acquiesced in a decree, and signified it by a 
concurrent response, then, and not till then, are dogmas and decrees in- 
fallibly correct. The first of these parties believes in the church vir- 
tual; the second in the church representative,- the third in the church 
diffusive i — the fourth in the church responsive, — as some of their canon- 
ists have taught. 

Yesterday, in discussing infallibility, I said it should be in the head, 
if any where. My friend the bishop, says, it should be in the body : 
and, to carry out the figure, if infallibility be in the body, the head 
must be under the control of the body : for the fallible must yield to 
the infallible. Now, the body is the animal part of every individual, 
the seat of the passions and affections ; and therefore ought to be under 
the dominion of the intellectual and moral head : yet this theory makes 
this body, the sensual and animal body govern. No wonder, then, 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 179 

that the Roman Catholic church is always corrupt. But from nature 
and reason and revelation, I would incline to that party that places 
the government in the head. There are the powers of government, 
and there ought to be the sceptre. It is abhorrent to reason — nay it is 
rather monstrous, to have the head under the dominion of the body. 

But I hasten to show, that be the government where it may, in the 
pope, the council, or the whole body, it is always fallible. I shall 
begin with the head ; and here we have pope against pope. Adrian 
VI. did, unequivocally, disown the pope's infallibility. Now, from this 
single fact, I prove the fallibility of the pope ; for Adrian was either 
right, or he was wrong. If right, the pope is fallible; for he avows 
that he is. If wrong, the pope is fallible ; for he was a pope and yet 
did err. This is a dilemma never to be annihilated nor disposed of. 
Pope Stephen VI. rescinded the decrees of pope Formosus. Pope 
John annulled those of pope Stephen, and restored those of pope Ste- 
phen. Sergius III. so hated Formosus and all that he did, as pope, 
that he obliged all the priests he ordained to be re-ordained. 

Sometimes popes have at one time condemned what themselves 
passed at another time ; for instance, Martin V. confirmed the decree 
of the council of Constance, which set a general council above the 
pope, and yet he afterwards published a decree, forbidding all appeals 
from the pope to a general council. He was certainly fallible, or, 
rather, he certainly erred in one case or in the other. What then is true 
of one pope officially, is true of all popes officially, and in proving a 
few regular and canonical popes to be fallible, we prove them all to be 
fallible. 

Is the second opinion better — is a general council infallible 1 I will 
state a fact or two: the council of Constance says the church in old 
times allowed the laity to partake of both kinds — the bread and the 
wine, in celebrating the eucharist. The council of Trent says, the laity 
and unofficiating priests may commune in one kind only. Here, then, 
we have council against council. In the time of pope Gelasius it was 
pronounced to be sacrilege to deny the cup to the laity : but now it is 
uncanonical to allow it. The fourth council of Lateran, A. D. 1215, 
says, with the concurrence and approbation of pope Innocent III., that 
the bread and wine in the act of consecration suffer a physical change. 
Then we begin to read of transubstantiation. Coun. Lat. iv. canon 1. 
"Did the church always maintain this doctrine ?" Nay, verily, for a 
host of fathers; nay the whole church for the first four centuries say 
" the change is only moral," — a sanctification, or separation to a spe- 
cial use. Here we might read a host of fathers, if we thought their 
testimony necessary. The third council of Lateran, or the eleventh 
oecumenical council, has decreed that 

" Non enim dicenda sunt juramenta sed potius perjuria quce contra utilita- 
tem ecclesiasticam el sanctorum patrum veniunt instituta." Con. Lat. iii. cum 
16 Labbe. Council Sacrosanct, vol. x. p. 1517. 

Literally, they are not to be called oaths, but perjuries, which are taken 
against the interests of the church and the holy fathers. 

Now does not this contradict Numb. xxx. 2, Lev. xix. 12, Deut. xxiii. 
23, Zech. viii. 17, Psal. xv. 4, and Matthew v. "Thou shalt perform 
unto the Lord thine oaths." 

Again, the second council of Lateran, the tenth oecumenical council, 
forbade the marriage of clergy. For 800 years the clergy were allowed 
to marry ! For the first 600 years one-half the canons of councils 



180 DEBATE ON THE 

were regulating the clergy as to the affairs of matrimony and celibacy. 
The ancient church had not yet learned to forbid marriage to the clergy ; 
for with Paul the clergy yet believed, that " marriage was honorable 
in all." 

I have thus shown that the church of Rome is not uniform ; and need 
we farther proof that she is mutable and fallible; — without that real unity 
arid uniformity of which she boasts 1 Have we not found pope against 
pope, council against council, the church of one age against the church 
of another age, and, by the acknowledgment of a pope, as much strife 
and party as amongst Protestants. 

Instead of reading that long essay yesterday, (I do not know what 
it was about, nor who wrote it; I paid no regard to it, it being obvi- 
ously read to fill up the time) — I say, that instead of such readings, I 
expected a reply to my remarks on infallibility, or on some of the great 
matters yet unnoticed ; but without any more distinct avowal of his 
notion of infallibility, I am left to plod my way as before. My op- 
ponent admits his faith is not the bible alone, but that immense library 
of one hundred and thirty-five folios, already mentioned. But as he is 
so silent on this point, I have an author in my hand whom he has al- 
ready commended in this city as good Roman Catholic authority; and, 
therefore, I quote him with his approbation. He has these 135 folios in 
his eye ; and on the question, who shall interpret for public use — theRt. 
Rev. J. F. M. Trevern, D. D. bishop of Strasburg, late of' Aire, thus 
speaks : 

" If each of us was obliged to distinguish, among many articles, those which 
come from tradition, and those which do not, he would find himself, in a general 
way, condemned to a labor above his strength. In fact, that part of the preach- 
ing of the apostles which they did not commit to writing, was at first confided 
solely to the memory of the faithful, fixed in particular churches by the oral in- 
structions of the first bishops, and afterwards collected partially and as occasion 
fell out, in the writings of the fathers, and in the acts of the synods and councils. 
Whence it follows, that to prove that such an article is truly of apostolic tradi- 
tion, we must consult the belief of the particular churches, examine carefully the 
acts of the councils and the voluminous writings of the fathers of the Greek 
and Latin churches. Who does not see that this labor requires a space of time 
and extent of erudition, that renders it in general impracticable? There are, 
indeed, to be found, men of extraordinary capacity and application, whose taste 
and inclination lead them to this kind of research; with the aid of the rules of 
criticism, all founded upon good sense, they balance and weigh authorities, they 
distinguish between what the fathers taught, as individual teachers, and what 
they depose as testifiers to the belief and practice oi their time, and they attach 
with discrimination the different degrees of credibility that are due, whether to 
their doctrine or their deposition. The world is well aware that such labor 
is calculated but for a small number: and again, after all how successful soever 
it may be, it scarcely ever leads to incontestible conclusions. We therefore are 
in want of some other means that may enable us altogether with certainty to 
arrive at the apostolic and divine traditions? The question is, what is this 
means? ********* 

Our author proceeds : 

"The same judge, the same interpreter that unfolds to us the sense of the 
divine books, manifest to us also, that of tradition. Now, this judge, this inter- 
preter, I must tell you here again, is the teaching body of the church, the bish- 
ops united in the same opinion, at least in a great majority. It is to them that, 
in the person of the apostles, were made the magnificent promises: " Go teach, 
I am with you; he that heareth you, heareth me. The Spirit of truth shall teach 
you all truth," &c. They alone then, have the right to teach what is revealed, 
to declare what is the written or unwritten word: they alone also have always 
been in possession of the exercise of it. No other ecclesiastics have everpre- 
tended to it, whatever have been their rank, their dignity, and learning. They 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 181 

may be consulted and heard; it is even proper this should be done, and it always 
has been done; for they form the council of the bishops, and their erudition ac- 
quired by long study, throws light upon the discussions. But as they have not 
the plentitude of the priesthood, they are not members of the eminent body that 
has succeeded the college of the apostles, and with it received the promises.'* 
Vol. I. pp. 168, 169. 

So then, to quote his words, as found on p. 108, " The opinions 
adopted by the majority of the bishops are for all an infallible rule of 
faith !" That is, " I believe in the holy Catholic church." 

But the priesthood are sworn " to interpret the scriptures according 
to the unanimous consent of the fathers." And if they do not, the 
people that believe them are innocent ! ! But how can they unless 
they examine all these fathers ? And what living man has read these 
135 folios, with or without much care ? In what a predicament is the 
conscience and faith of this people ! Here is a task, which I say, 
never was, or can be, performed by man. The bishop can only fulfil 
his oath by teaching what the Catholic church teaches. We have our 
Old and New Testament without the apocrypha. They have the bible, 
the apocrypha, and 135 folios. Let us now compare the Roman and 
Protestant rules and interpretations ! Both rules, for the sake of argu- 
ment, be it observed, need interpretation. But it so happens, that a 
a Protestant bishop, and a Roman Catholic bishop, are equally fallible, 
my opponent being judge. As the stream, then, cannot rise above the 
fountain, both interpretations are fallible. Are we not equal? 

Where do you find an infallible expositor of the bible ? says the 
Roman Catholic. I answer, Where do you find an infallible exposi- 
tor of these volumes ? You have a more difficult task, and no better 
help, than we. The Protestants say that God can speak as intelligibly 
as the pope, and that he is as benevolently disposed as any priesthood. 
He does not require an infallible expositor; he is his own expositor. 
His Spirit is the spirit of knowledge and eloquence, and can speak 
intelligibly to every listener. As well might we say, that he who 
made the eye cannot see, as that he who gave man mind and speech can- 
not address clearly and intelligibly that mind of which he is the author ! 
I ask the Romanist, however, on his own principles, where is his in- 
fallible expositor of these 135 volumes ? I request a categorical answer. 

Bishop P. A general council, or the pope, with the acquiescence 
of the church at large. 

Mr. C. How do we approach — where shall we find this council? 
It has not met for two hundred and seventy-five years. How can they, 
therefore, settle a point between the bishop and me ? Every age has 
its errors and divisions. Every individual has his doubts. Ought 
there not to be a general council eternally in session ? If, then, there 
is none — no infallible expositor extant ; wherein is the Romanist, with 
all his proud assumption, superior to the Protestant? It was three 
hundred and twenty-five years from Christ before the first general 
council ; and it is two hundred and seventy-five years since the last 
general council of Trent; and the church has been six hundred years, 
at two periods, without an infallible expositor ! To show the equality 
of the two parties, suppose a Jew were converted to Christianity. 
Suppose he had heard of just two sects of Christians ; all the rest 
being annihilated, but the Roman Catholic and the Protestant. He 
has read the New Testament. He wishes to join the church. He 
goes to the Roman Catholic bishop, and says : " I see two churches, 
*4 



182 DEBATE ON THE 

sir: I don't know which to join. I read that there is but one true 
church." What does the bishop respond 1 " Sir, you ought to join 
our church." The Jew asks, " Your reason, sir? for the Protestant 
also says, I ought to join his church." The bishop shows him fifteen 
marks of the true church. He says, " Read the Bible, and see if these 
marks are not characteristic of us ; and then judge for yourself." He 
finds these marks involve the principal part of the New Testament. 
He reads, however, and joins the church. Has he not decided this 
question by examining the holy scriptures 1 Has he not interpreted 
for himself? Is not the bishop so far a true Protestant 1 or, has he 
only become Protestant for the purpose of introducing this proselyte 1 
There is no getting out of this difficulty. I trust my good friend will 
not pass it with a laugh, and a bold assertion, as usual. Has he not 
in this renounced his own principles, and turned Protestant, for the 
sake of gaining the Jew 1 

But, when the Jew has entered the church, and the bishop has told 
him he must now believe as the church believes, for he cannot under- 
stand the Bible : " Wbat !" responds the Jew ; <k sir, have I not deci- 
ded the greatest question to me in the universe 1 I believed in Jesus, 
and I have found the true church by exercising my own judgment on 
the scriptures ; and can I not now judge of minor questions ?" May 
I not again say, that the two systems are perfectly equal ] The eter- 
nal circle of vicious logic — you must believe the scriptures on the 
authority of the church, then the church on the authority of the 
scriptures : or, you must act as did the aforesaid Jew, on the advice 
of the bishop. There is not a middle course. My learned antagonist 
cannot show you a middle way. But I have not yet done with this great 
theme. I wish to display in other attitudes, these two " rules of 
faiths 

And, first, I shall sketch the Protestant rule. Its attributes are 
seven. 1. It is inspired. 2. It is authoritative. 3. It is intelligible. 
4. It is moral. 5. It is perpetual. 6. It is catholic. 7. // is perfect. 
We will now prove this. 

1. It is inspired: for, " Holy men of God" says Peter, " spoke as 
they were moved by the Holy Spirit." 

2. Authoritative. " The word that /speak to you, shall judge you 
in the last day," says the Lord from heaven. 

3. Intelligible. To the Ephesian converts he saith, " When you 
read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." 

4. Moral. " The word of the Lord is pure, rejoicing the heart." 

5. Perpetual. " The word of the Lord endureth for ever; and this 
is the word which has been announced to you as glad tidings." 

6. Catholic. " He that is of God, heareth God's word." " Preach 
the word." " Preach the gospel to every creature." 

7. Perfect. " From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, 
which are able to make thee wise to salvation." " All scripture given by 
inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruc- 
tion in righteousness, thoroughly furnished to every good work." 

All Christendom assents to this. My opponent admits the bible to 
be inspired. His rule makes his church a sect; for only a part be- 
lieve in his traditions. All christians admit our rule of the bible. 

It is perfect. Such is the Protestant rule. Now for the Romanist 
rule ! The bible being a part of the Roman Catholic rule, is such 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 183 

only as explained by the apocrypha, the traditions of the fathers, the 
decrees and canons of councils, or in the hands of bishops ; so com- 
pletely humanized, as to lose all its peculiar attributes, and is made 
to partake of all the characters of the mediums, through which it is 
given to that people ; and, therefore, of the whole Roman Catholic 
rule, the attributes are just the opposite of those seven of the Pro- 
testant's. 

1. It is uninspired : consequently, being human, it can have no au- 
thority over the conscience ; and this makes it 

2. Unauthoritative. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and no 
man can make a law to govern it. Hence a christian never can be 
subordinate to any institution in religion, that wants the sanction of 
divine authority. 

3. Unintelligible. No man can ever find time to examine all the 
creed of Roman Catholics. It is constantly accumulating ; and if any 
one had time to read it all, he never could understand it. 

4. Immoral. This is that attribute which I wish specially to con- 
sider. The other properties are all consequences of those already no- 
ticed. But this demands a candid and faithful examination. It gives 
me no pleasure to dwell upon this theme, to expatiate on the immoral 
character of the papistic rule of faith. 'Tis here, indeed, we find the 
root of the manifold corruptions of that institution ; and as I came here 
not to flatter, but to oppose error and defend truth, it is my duty con- 
scientiously and benevolently to expose the immoral tendencies of this 
system. 

We have heard the gentleman say, he was glad of an opportunity to 
discuss Catholicism, to make Protestants understand better its peculiar 
doctrines. I wish, myself, to hear his expositions, to see if he can 
make it more acceptable. Therefore, I shall endeavor to tell my story, 
candidly and faithfully, and give him the opportunity he desires. This 
is my first effort against Romanism. It was not of my selection or 
seeking, that I now appear before you : but as I am providentially, as 
I regard it, on this arena, I shall reveal to you some of the secrets of 
that institution, which seeks to be rooted in this Protestant soil. I 
shall attempt this in the best spirit : for I wish to see my opponent 
honorably wipe from his escutcheon any stain of the kind, that I may 
allege. On these points, I shall be happy to be assured that his sys- 
tem is better than we Protestants can now regard it. 

I say, then, the Roman Catholic rule of faith is immoral. This, my 
friends, is a serious and weighty charge, and deserves to be clearly and 
fully sustained. Before displaying my proof, I will only premise, 
that auricular confession, penance, the mass, absolution, and other 
parts of the system will pass before us in this allegation, sustaining 
which, will anticipate some of our labors on the other propositions. 

I shall first read from the Catechism of the council of Trent on the 
power of the priesthood to forgive sin, according to their rule of faith. 
Auricular confession, is by this infallible council declared " necessary 
for the remission of sins." 

" The voice of the priest," says the council of Trent, who is legitimately con- 
stituted a minister for the remission of sins, is to be heard as that of Christ him- 
self, who said to the lame man, '* Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven 
thee." Cat. Council of Trent, p. 180. 

Penance by the same council is thus defined : 

Form of Penance. — " Penance is the channel through which the blood of 
G 10 



184 t>EBATE ON THE 

Christ flows into the soul, and washes away the stains contracted after baptism/* 
Id. ib. " The form of the absolution or pardon, granted by the priest, is this; 

44 I ABSOLVE THEE." Id. p. 181. 

The priest says positively, " I absolve thee ." Unlike the authority 
of him, who anciently declared the leper clean, he claims really and 
truly to absolve. The council decla/es : 

" Unlike the authority given to the priests of the old law, to declare the leper 
cleansed from his leprosy, the power with which the priests of the new law are 
invested, is not simply to declare that sins are forgiven, but as the ministers of 
God really to absolve from sin.'" Id. p. 182. 

The priests, then, as the ministers of God, really absolve from sin. 
And more insolent still, the priest is said not only to represent Christ; 
but to discharge the functions of Jesus Christ : 

" The rites used in the administration of this sacrament, also demand the seri- 
ous attention of the faithful. Humbled in spirit the sincere penitent casts him- 
self down at the feet of the priest, to testify, by this his humble demeanor, that 
he acknowledges the necessity of eradicating pride, the root of all those enor- 
mities which he now deplores. In the minister of God, who sits in the tribunal 
of penance as his legitimate judge, he venerates thepowerund person of our Lord 
Jesus Christ; for in the administration of this, as in that of the other sacraments, 
the priest represents the character, and discharges the functions of Jesus Christ.'" 
Coun. Trent, p. 182. 

Again Roman Catholics teach that penance remits all sin : 

" There is no sin, however grievous, no crime, however erroneous, or howe- 
ver frequently repeated, which penance does not remit." Id. p. 183. 

This is the proper ground on which to claim the most servile obedi- 
ence to the priests : 

44 If therefore, we read in the pages of inspiration, of some who earnestly im- 
plored the mercy of God, but implored it in vain, it is because they did not repent 
sincerely, and from their hearts. When we also meet in the sacred scriptures, 
and in the writings of the fathers, passages which seem to say that some sins are 
irremissible, we are to understand such passages to mean, that it is very difficult 
to obtain the pardon of them. A disease may be said to be incurable, when the 
patient loathes the medicine that would accomplish his cure; and, in some sense, 
some sins may be said to be irremissible, when the sinner rejects the grace of 
God, the proper medicine of salvation." Id. ib. 44 The penitent must submit 
himself to the judgment of the priest who is the vicegerent of God." Ib. p. 183. 

Therefore, all must confess once a year. 

"According to the canon of the council of Lateran, which begins: Omnes, 
jutriusque sexus, it commands all the faithful to confess their sins at least once a 
year." Id. p. 193. 

But this immoral law presumes farther yet. It changes the laws of 
God, and divides sins into venial and mortal, and fixes the price. As 
every thing depends upon the authority of these allegata I have hitherto 
quoted from the catechism of the council of Trent,* I now introduce 
one of the most popular of the saints of the modern church. This 
saint Ligori was sainted by saint Pius VII. that best of modern popes, 
who restored the order of the Jesuits, and the " Holy Inquisition." 
Saint Ligori writes the moral theology of the church of Rome in some 
eight or nine volumes : and so orthodox, that his works are owned al- 
most by every priest. I quote from a synopsis of that system of which 
we shall hereafter speak more particularly. We shall hereafter hear 
the saint in his definitions of sins. 

44 This is a mortal sin," says Ligori, " which, on account of its enormity, de- 
stroys the grace and friendship of God, and deserves eternal punishment. It is 
called mortal, because it destroys the principle of spiritual life, which is habitual 
grace, and kills the soul. 

* See Catechism, council of Trent, as revised by John Hughes of Philadelphia, priest of 
St. John's church, pp. 192, 193. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 185 

Venial sin is that which, on account of its levity, does not destroy the grace 
and friendship of God although it diminishes the fervor of charity, and deserves 
a temporal punishment. It is called venial, because the principle of the spiritual 
life, grace, being still sound, it affects the soul with languor, that is easily cured, 
the pardon of which is easily obtained." Ligor. lib. v. n. 51. [Synopsis, p. 20. 

The Roman Catholic rule of faith erects a tribunal of confession un- 
known in scripture, and commands all to come to it at least once a 
year. It moreover institutes a new office called confessor, unknown 
in the New Testament, and gives to him the office of a father, a phy- 
sician, a teacher, and a judge. 

" The offices that a good confessor is bound to exercise," " are four: namely, 
those of Father, Physician, Teacher, and Judge." Ligor. Theol. T. viii. p. 7. 

The confessor forgives all sins on confession, even the sin against 
the Holy Spirit : 

"There is no sin, however grievous, no crime however enormous, or however 
frequently repeated, which penance does not remit." Cat. Conn. Trent, p. 183. 

Penance here means the " Tribunal of confession :" for this tri- 
bunal is sometimes called simply " confession" " The sacrament of 
confession :" at other times it is called the " tribunal of penance." 
Sometimes simply " Penance," and he who confesses is called " the 
penitent." But satisfactions and penances are to be apportioned ac- 
cording to the discretion of the priest. 

"According to the council of Trent, (Sess. xiv. c. 8.) the satisfactions" (by 
which they mean penancea,) «* ought to be in proportion to the crime, since those 
confessors who enjoin light penances for grievous sins, participate of those sins; 
nevertheless the confessor, for just reasons, can diminish the penances, provided 
the penitent is affected with violent compunction, or if it be during the time of 
a jubilee, or a plenary indulgence, and especially, if he labor under any infirmi- 
ty of body or mind. And lastly, (to be brief,) always whenever a prudent fear 
is entertained, lest the penitent would not perform penance due to his sins. 
Such is the common doctrine taught by the doctors, with St. Thomas." Ligor. 
Prax. Con. N. ii. 

But still worse : this immoral law or rule of faith repeals and annuls 
certain positive divine laws. I have here two catechisms, published 
by the authority of the church. They have both expunged wholly the 
second commandment ; so that it should not stand in the way of pay- 
ing reverence to images. [Time expired.] 

Half past 10 o'clock, A. M. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

If my friend, Mr. Campbell, has failed to establish against the 
Catholic church, a single one of those propositions, which have been 
so conspicuously before the public for the last two or three months, 
and if I have established two or three of them against his own vague 
theory, it is not for want of splendid abilities on his part, or the pos- 
session of them on mine. The reason of his failure, is the inherent 
weakness of the cause he advocates, as the true secret of my success, 
is to be found in the impenetrable, diamond strength and beauty of the 
institution, which, in an evil hour for his past glory as a controversial- 
ist, he volunteered to attack. He has this day (and again I thank him) 
brought up, for discussion, the most important subject that can occupy 
or engross the attention of this enlightened audience, viz. the rule of 
faith. If fairly published, as I have every reason to believe this con- 
troversy will be, it will send forth sound and useful information, 
through the whole length and breadth of the land, upon a topic of the 
most vital interest; and I will, most joyfully, meet Mr. C. on that 
q2 24 



186 DEBATE ON THE 

question, for I hail with exultation such an opportunity of dispelling 
prejudice and misunderstanding with regard to our real principles. 1 
will give categorical answers to all the questions he has propounded ; 
and, therefore, do I take up the subject he has been pleased to touch. 
1. He says, the methods of electing the pope are various. But let 
that pass : the method is nothing. It is with his authority we are con- 
cerned. He has wasted much time in building up a house of sand, to 
show how easily he could demolish it, by showing that the pope is 
not infallible ; whereas, I have repeatedly told him, that the Catholic 
church has never taught that the pope's infallibility was an article of 
faith. He spoke of some more or less important but unessential points of 
difference of opinion between Dominicans and Jesuits. But he should 
have shown, to establish the proposition before this house, that these or- 
ders disagree with regard to articles of faith. Their minor differences are 
nothing, so long as they implicitly believe every article of faith revealed 
by almighty God and proposed for their belief by the church, which they 
all hear, and which they regard as the " pillar and ground of the 
truth." This is the solid and immovable foundation of their union. 
The case of the cup given to, or withheld from, the laity, as I have 
already told him, is one merely of discipline. It may now be given, 
or not, as the pope may see cause. In the time of Gelasius, it was 
pronounced sacrilege to deny the cup to the laity; and, if all my 
hearers had read church history, I need not tell them, it was because 
of the leaven of Manicheism still working in pretended communi- 
cants, who forbade the use of wine as coming from the evil principle. No 
father of the church, however, said, that the consecration of the eucharis- 
tic species, is a mere ' separation,' or the change only a ' moral change.' 
I defy him to the proof. Mr. C. says : " So far Protestants and Cath- 
olics are equal ;" for, that they have also a grand generic principle, 
viz : that the Bible is their rule of faith, and the Bible alone. Now, 
I take up the organ of a numerous body of christians, the Christian 
Palladium, and I meet him here with a strong argument in my favor, 
upon this principle. Speaking of Mr. Campbell, (I mean by this no per- 
sonality, that can be thought invidious : I intend none) the editor ob- 
serves : " He frequently speaks of ' the Bible alone ,-' but this is not a 
term used generally by the brethren in New England, and is taught 
by few except Mr. C. We never knew our brethren to boast of walk- 
ing by the Bible alone. This we regard as an error, let who will 
proclaim it. We say, give us the Bible, but not alone. Let us have 
a God, a Christ, a Spirit, and a ministry accompanying it. There 
was a law given to the Jews, and also a testimony, which they were 
bound to observe. The testimony of the inspired prophets did not con- 
tradict the law, but taught and enforced the same truths. The ancients 
were to walk by the law and the testimony, which was called a word* 
(Is. viii. 20.) What this " redoubtable captain" of reform says, of 
sailing sometimes under this flag and sometimes under that, is per- 
fectly applicable to — " but I will not read further : this is sufficient 
for my argument. The Bible alone is not the rule of faith to all Pro- 
testants. Quakers, Mormons, &c, think not so, as I have already 
proved. And, now, Mr. Campbell can do infinitely more with the in- 
tellects of his hearers, than the pope has ever done witn those of Cath- 
olics, if he can persuade them that the differences between Protestants, 
who all take the Bible for their rule of faith, are unimportant. Is the 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 187 

divinity of Christ an important or an unimportant article 1 One class 
of Bible-reading Protestants admit the doctrine ; another reject it with 
horror: pretty unity this! The Episcopalians believe in the necessity 
of submission to the bishops ; and eloquently have I heard the author- 
ity of the church advocated by them. They do not say that the church 
is infallible, and in this they are inconsistent. But will they allow that 
the difference between them and Presbyterians is unimportant ] Is the 
doctrine of a hell, with endless torments there for the wicked, unim- 
portant 1 One class of Bible-readers hold this also, and another class 
reject it! Alas ! for the declaration of my friend, that he can prove 
whatever he states to be a fact. I strongly suspect a man who makes 
such asseverations. 

He is loud in his panegyrics on the unity of Protestants in essential 
acts of worship : they pray together, &c. If this were even so, of 
what avail is it, when they differ in essential doctrines. But, is not my 
friend aware, that this is by no means a fact ] And what reliance can 
we place on his statements of what occurred centuries ago, when here, 
at home, and refutation nigh at hand, he makes such curious assertions 1 

Did not a case occur, last summer, within sixty miles of Cincinnati, 
at Dayton, when the Episcopalian minister, the Rev. Mr. Allen, for- 
bade the Rev. Mr. Peabody, a Unitarian clergyman, of irreproachable 
morals and great amiableness of disposition, to preach in his church 1 
Did not the bishop reprimand the vestry, and Episcopalian minister, 
for having previously allowed him to preach there ] I think the 
Episcopalian bishop acted, in this respect, as he should have done. I 
blame none of the parties concerned, but I state an incontrovertible 
fact. Again, at Pottsville, Pennsylvania, another case occurred. A 
Unitarian minister died there, and the Episcopal clergyman refused to 
say prayers at his funeral, because of his religious belief. What, 
then, becomes of my friend's vague and general assertion, about unity 
among Protestants in essential acts of worship ] Will he, then, ex- 
communicate the Unitarian] and, if he once begin, how many more 
sects must be put out of the pale 1 

Let him shew me that a Jesuit or a Dominican, a Franciscan, or a 
Benedictine, or an Augustinian ever refused to let a member of either 
of these orders preach in his church, or to say prayers over a corpse 
because of the difference of orders'? Such a thing has never been heard 
of; so that we have unity, and Protestants have none, neither in doc- 
trine, nor in worship ; neither in essentials nor in non-essentials, them- 
selves being judges. 

If my hearers wish for a practical and convincing proof of Catholic 
uniformity of faith, they have only to enquire of the emigrants from 
the various countries of Europe, who have fled from the oppression of 
their rulers at home, to find free and happy homes amongst us here, 
and I promise them that however awkward their appearance, however 
broken their language, or uncouth their apparel, they will all answer 
the same on doctrinal points. America, Asia, Europe, Africa, New 
Holland, our faith is every where the same, like our God and our 
church. Who can make void the prayer of Christ for unity ] Who 
can disturb the church's union 1 As well might he pretend to make 
the harmony of heaven to sleep. Is this union exemplified among 
Protestants 1 The very contrary is true. And why] Because the 
apple of discord is flung among them. The seeds of disorganization and 



188 DEBATE ON THE 

death were thickly sown in Protestantism from the birth. Sects multiply- 
without end — their name is Legion. My friend was quite witty, about 
the 135 ponderous folios which, according to him, a Catholic must 
read to understand the doctrines of his church. But does he not per- 
ceive that a Protestant is infinitely worse off? For he must read lan- 
guages in which the fathers of the church have not written — Hebrew, 
Syriac, Arabic ; as well as those in which the fathers did write, Greek, 
Latin, &c. before he can form a prudent judgment that he has acquired 
the elementary knowledge necessary to understand his rule of faith. 
He must read folios of commentators and learned dissertations on 
controverted texts. He must decide for himself what books of scrip- 
ture are genuine and what apocryphal, or spurious. For this purpose 
he must explore the archives of the ancient churches, all the dusty 
tomes and ponderous folios of the ecclesiastical writers, to ascertain 
what books were regarded in their times as canonical, and what as un- 
canonical. And when he has, if ever, accomplished this herculean 
task, he will be no better off than when he began, for he can never re- 
ly on the testimony of those fathers, whom he considers just as liable 
to have been mistaken as himself! Thus he can never be sure that he 
possesses objective truth, or the revealed will of God : he can never 
be sure that he possesses subjective truth, that is, that he has a perfect 
knowledge of what that will is. Thus he can never be sure that his 
rule of faith is inspired, authoritative, perfect, I call on my learned 
friend to prove the contrary of this argument, if he can. And if he can- 
not, I have clearly established the contrary of his proposition, viz : 
that Protestants are not uniform in their faith, neither can they be. Now 
mark the difference on the Catholic side of the argument. We go for 
the Bible and tradition — the whole word of God, written and unwrit- 
ten. We take the Bible and the church; the Bible and the testimony. 
This renders for us assurance doubly sure. We believe that Christ 
established a church on earth which he made the guardian of the divine 
deposite. From that church, that divinely appointed guardian we receive 
the heavenly gift. She vouches for its accuracy, and on her testimony 
we receive the Bible, as an inspired, authoritative, perpetual, Catholic, 
perfect, and, explained by her, intelligible volume. But as we know 
on the authority of St. John xviii. 21, 25, that the world itself could not, 
as he thought, contain all that Christ spoke, and he always spoke 
to instruct or edify — as we know that Peter " with many other words" 
not recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, convinced the Jews that 
Jesus was the Messiah — as we know moreover that St. Paul com- 
manded the Thessalonians, 2d. Ep., 2d. ch., 14. v. to hold the tra- 
ditions which they had learned, whether by the word, or his epistle ; 
and ordered Timothy to hold the form of sound words which he had 
heard from him, in faith; we therefore place the word of God, so con- 
veyed to us, by the side of Scripture, and in this, as I have just shewn, 
the Scripture itself is our guide. Our traditions do not, like those of 
the Pharisees whom Christ reproached, make the Scripture void. We 
believe nothing contrary to the Bible — nothing that the Bible does not 
clearly approve. The same God that revealed the Bible, established 
the church. They do not contradict, they mutually sustain each other. 
I did not say that the pope is inspired, that the council is inspired, or 
that the church is inspired ; but I do say that the church, whether as- 
sembled in a general council, or diffused throughout the world, is as 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 189 

certainly assisted by the Holy Ghost to teach all truth, as the evan- 
gelists and other writers of the Holy Scriptures were inspired by the 
same divine Spirit to write the special truths which they were commis- 
sioned to reveal to particular churches, and on particular occasions. A 
Catholic is under no necessity of knowing every thing that has been 
ever said or done by the doctors and fathers of the church, before he 
can understand what are the articles of his faith. He knows that, in 
regard to doctrine they unanimously agree in receiving the Apostles' 
creed. Hence he is sure that, " I believe in God, the Father Almighty, 
Creator of Heaven and Earth" is an article of faith which none of these 
fathers contradict, and he has the same absolute certainty with regard 
to all the remaining articles, viz : I believe in Jesus Christ, in the 
Holy Ghost, the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the 
forgiveness of sins. So far for the doctrine ; besides which articles 
he is in the habitual state of mind to believe implicitly whatever God 
has revealed and proposed by his church. Then for the natural and 
moral law he has an equally comprehensive epitome, viz : the Ten 
commandments of God ; with respect to which he knows that there 
has never been the slightest difference of opinion. 

Neither the pope, nor a general council, nor the whole church has 
now, or ever had, the power to change, or suppress an article of the 
creed, or a precept of the decalogue. Is there any thing vague in 
this ? any thing indistinct ? any thing unscriptural or antiscriptural ? 

My friend does not hear, or correctly state what I say. I did not 
say that the body ruled the head. It would be a contradiction in terms ; 
because the body supposes a head and a heart, which every body 
ought to have. There must be no schism in the body. He has made 
some very eloquent observations on the impossibility of determining 
where the infallibility resides, whether in the head or in the body or 
both &c. in the pope, or in a general council, and argues that we may 
therefore as well have none at all. Now, let me illustrate this point. 
Has not my friend a mind and one too highly endowed by nature ? 
Well, does he know where it resides ? Is it in his head ; or in his 
heart, or in his stomach ? (a laugh) Does he know where to put his 
hand upon it? There are various theories upon this subject among 
scientific men. But who denies that he has a mind ? I repeat, who 
denies the existence of mind? Does it affect this belief to say that 
we cannot tell whether it is here or there — in the body or around it ? So 
it is with the heavenly mind that guides the church. Even if we did 
not know its exact place of residence, we could easily judge of its 
influence and guidance by its effects. But we do know where it evin- 
ces its presence, as I have more than once explained to the gentleman. 

What has Adrian's opinion to do with the question ? It was but his 
personal, private opinion, and no article of faith. Whether this opi- 
nion was right, or wrong, all I said stands good. The witty conceit 
of my friend was a sophistry suggested by the pagan oracles, who 
could respond in" such ambiguous terms, that it might be interpreted 
in favor of the oracle's foreknowledge according to the event ; for 
instance a king going out to battle would be told, " You will destroy a 
great city;" but whether it was his own, or his enemies', depended on 
the issue. The idea is borrowed from Pagan craft. 

[I am now admonished to dilate a little longer on the decision of 
the council of Constance with regard to the ' Cup.' 1 have frequently, 



190 DEBATE ON THE 

in my intercourse with persons not Catholic, heard this difficulty pro- 
posed ; and I am glad of the opportunity, once for all, of explaining 
it. Why does the Roman Catholic church withhold the cup from 
the laity 1 In the early ages, the holy eucharist was communicated to 
the faithful under either species ; often under both. When the eucha- 
rist was carried, as it was the practice of primitive christians to carry 
it with them in all their sojournings, by sea and land, as wine was ex- 
posed to sour in tropical climes, they consequently carried, on their 
travels, only the species of Bread. Did they believe that the virtue 
of the eucharist was thus destroyed ] No. They knew with St. Paul 
that Jesus Christ, rising from the dead, dieth no more. Death shall 
no longer have dominion over him. They knew therefore that his 
flesh was living flesh, not dead and bloodless ; and that, consequent- 
ly, in the eucharist, under either species the flesh and blood are in- 
separably united. 

What was the reason of the abolition of the practice 1 When the 
deacons distributed the consecrated elements to the faithful, there 
were many infirm, decrepit, and palsied communicants, from whose 
trembling hands, or lips, it was feared, as it had frequently occurred, 
the cup might fall, and thus might the holy elements be trodden under 
foot and profaned. A contrary usage was therefore instituted, and it 
has since prevailed. The dislike, indeed disgust, which many persons 
feel for wine, the unwillingness to drink from a chalice which had 
passed from mouth to mouth, &c. &c. are causes which, in all pro- 
bability, prevent a change in the present disciplinary regulation, but 
the church could to morrow reestablish the abolished practice of giv- 
ing the cup to the laity, if she please. She did so, since the Pro- 
testant reformation, in favor of the Bohemians. 

The subject of oaths and perjuries was quoted. Any man in his 
sober senses must discern that my friend has mistaken the meaning 
of the pope. Examine the circumstances. He supposes the truth 
that the church neither can nor does require any thing contrary to 
justice and judgment, and truth, which, in all her standards, and in all 
her catechisms, she teaches as the essential conditions, for every law 
ful oath. Again, she every where teaches, with St. Paul, that an oath, 
contrary to conscience, is a sin. 

The pope knew that the church could not — that God himself, who 
founded her as the pillar and ground of the truth, could not be pleas- 
ed with sin, or served by a lie. Let me illustrate this matter and 
set it at rest for ever. An infidel, swears that he will write against 
the utility of the bible, deny its authenticity, undermine its evidences, 
cast it into the flames. Is his oath an act of religion] Is it not rather 
a perjury 1 Again — a man swears to take away the life of another 
man, justly or unjustly, he boots not. Is not his oath a perjury, 
rather than an oath, since it is manifestly against the utility of socie- 
ty and, consequently, against the order of God 1 It is remarkable that 
the pope speaks too of an oath against the teaching of the fathers, 
" contra instituta patrum," than whose sermons against all grievous 
crimes, and in an especial manner, against perjury, nothing can be 
conceived more denunciatory, more truly terrific. Is it fair — is it lo- 
gical, to draw from the premises a conclusion so vituperative 1 

To force a shadow of uniformity, the thirty-nine articles were drawn 
up by the church of England, and the clergy of that church, by a cruel 
tyranny over conscience, compelled to swear to them. Many eminent 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 191 

divines of that church have taught that the articles are not to be 
sworn to with unqualified assent, but that the mental reservation, as 
I understand them, is allowed : while the sovereign lord, or lordess, 
of church and state, and many no less eminent divines, have insisted 
that the articles must be sworn to with the most entire and unqualifi- 
ed submission. Is this, in my friend's estimation, the reverence due 
to the solemnity of an oath ? or is it not taking the holy name in 
vain? Catholic priests in this country take no oath. I took none. 
The first oath I took was one of allegiance to the United States, ab- 
juring all foreign potentates, &c, as the oath is couched. This oath 
I took in the hands of Judges John and Thomas Buchanan, in Fred- 
erick, Maryland. I also took an oath, several years afterwards, when 
consecrated a bishop, to testify my belief in a faithful adherence to 
the doctrines of my church. This was a further confirmation of the 
oath which I had previously taken. This is no immorality. 

We are again referred to a change in the ' doctrine ' of the church. 
"The second council of the Lateran," so says Mr. C. "forbade the 
marriage of the clergy, whereas nothing was more common in the first 
eight centuries than for priests to marry" Now, in the first place, 
celibacy is no part of Catholic doctrine, at all. It is not an article 
of faith. The pope could, to-morrow, change that law, and allow 
the Roman Catholic clergy, as the Greek priests do, to marry. It is 
one of the bright features of our ministry, that the time and means, 
which the care, and support of a family would engross, are devoted by 
a priest to the advantage, spiritual and temporal, of his flock. Marriage 
is a good, wise, and noble institution. " Increase and multiply," is the 
command of God. But we hold that it is more perfect, or as St. Paul 
says, " it is good " for the " Priests of the Lamb " to abstain. God, 
for whose sake they make the sacrifice, will sustain them through temp- 
tation. Keep thyself chaste, says St. Paul to Timothy, 1st Ep. ch. 
v. 21. Again, St. John says: "And I heard a voice from heaven, as 
the voice of harpers harping on their harps, and they sung as it were 
a new canticle, before the throne, and before the four living creatures 
and the ancients ; and no man could say the canticle, but those hun- 
dred and forty-four thousand, who were purchased from the earth. 
These are they who were not defiled with women : for they are vir- 
gins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were 
purchased from among men, the first-fruits to God and to the Lamb : 
and in their mouth there was found no lie; for they are without spot 
before the throne of God." What does all this mean] Is it not evi- 
dently the highest eulogy that could be pronounced on the state to 
which their holy functions, as priests of the spotless Victim of 
our altars, daily summon the clergy of our church 1 I glory in this 
feature of our discipline. Death before dishonor to a virginal priest- 
hood! 

In the second place it is a wide mistake, to say that nothing was 
more common, for the first six hundred years, than for priests to mar- 
ry. The general council of Nice enforced, by a special enactment, 
the celibacy of the clergy. This was the first general council of the 
Catholic church ; and the practice, it enforced, was no innovation. 
The councils of Neo Cassarea and Ancyra had, several years previ- 
ously, made laws to this effect for priests and deacons. How was 
the circumstance introduced into the council of Nice 1 Several bish- 
ops, priests and deacons, had been married before their ordination. It 



192 DEBATE ON THE 

was proposed to compel those who had not voluntarily returned to 
singleness of life, to separate from their wives. Paphnuicus, an un- 
married bishop, in consequence of the abuse the Manichaeans, who 
considered marriage as coming from the evil principle, dissuaded the 
council from this course, and so the bishops agreed, for all past mar- 
riages. So generally, however, was the celibacy of the Greek clergy 
then established, that even Protestant historians — Mosheim, 1st vol. 
p. 65, — complain of the melancholy, morose and unsocial institution, 
in the second century. " The sensual man," says St. Paul, " per- 
ceiveth not the things that are of the Spirit of God, for it is foolishness 
to him" 1st Cor. ii. 14. But of the many curious things which my 
friend has said, most unwittingly, in my favor, in the course of this 
debate, the most curious of all is that he should have, himself, in- 
formed us, that for the first six hundred years, one half the canons 
were occupied with the regulation of the clergy as to this affair of 
celibacy ! ! And why, if the clergy were allowed to marry 1 Is not 
this, independently of the acts of these councils, which have reached 
us, irresistible proof of the care taken to obtain an unmarried, a pure 
clergy 1 This is not immorality. 

Confession is not an immoral doctrine. It is a holy institution. 
This I shall prove in due course of time. I agree with the venerable 
bishop Trevern, the learned author of the "Amicable Discussion," and 
of the "Answer to Faber's Difficulties of Romanism." Let my friend 
but study these pages with sincerity, and he, too, will become a Catho- 
lic. How different the doctrine of the Catholic bishop of Strasburgh, 
and of the Protestant bishop Onderdonk, of Philadelphia. The for- 
mer shews clearly how the most humble Catholic can have a divine 
assurance for the truth of his religion ; the latter, as I have myself 
heard him declare, in St.Paul's church, Philadelphia, in the year 1832, 
(and his pastoral charge has been since published, and it will prove 
what I here say,) teaches that not even the most learned Protestant 
can ever be positively sure that either himself or his church is right ! 
And yet, St. Paul says, without faith it is impossible to please God. By 
faith, he of course means true faith — and yet the Protestant bishop says 
we never can be sure that we have that faith ! What becomes now of 
the Protestant infallibility, for which my friend so strenuously argued 
to-day 1 The bishop's conclusion, on Protestant grounds, is more rea- 
sonable than Mr. C.'s. As long as two pious and able men, of different 
denominations, after all their efforts at fruth, come to different and op- 
posite conclusions upon essential matters, how can either say " I am 
right," and " my neighbor is wrong]" What, I am asked, is the course 
I would pursue with one who is not yet a christian, but anxious to be 
instructed in the evidences of Christianity ] Why, the course I would 
pursue is this: I would address his reason alone, as long as he has no 
better guide — convince him that the bible is, at least, authentic his- 
tory — and that he can rely upon the truth of the facts recorded in it, 
as he would on human testimony. I would introduce him to Jesus 
Christ, whose character is there portrayed, whose miracles are there 
recorded. I would tell him why he came on earth ; how he founded a 
church to explain whatever was difficult in the bible, after having col- 
lected all its books together, what no man could do for himself; how 
he established that church as the pillar and ground of the truth, and 
said of its pastors, " He that heareth you, heareth me;" and when I 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 193 

had convinced him of the authority of the church, I would not require 
of him to abjure reason, but I would consign him to a higher and safer 
guide, that church, herself the immaculate bride of Christ. 

Now my friend's allusion to the Jew, brings a story to my mind, 
and I cannot answer his queries better than by relating it. A Protes- 
tant and a Catholic clergyman walking together, met a Jewish Rabbi, 
"Well, Solomon," says the Protestant minister, "here we three are 
met, and all of different religions, which of us is right]" "I'll tell 
thee," says the Israelite, " If the Messiah has not come, I am right ; 
if he has come, the Catholic is right; but whether he has come or not, 
you are wrong." (A laugh.) — [Time expires.] 

Half past 11 o'clock, A. M. 
Mr. Campblll rises — 

I shall respond to such matters as have a bearing on the question, as 
soon as I have finished my exposition of the immoral tendency of the 
Romish rule of faith. 

That common cursing or damning, which offends our ears in all 
the lanes and streets and highways, is authorized in the following 
words : 

" To curse insensible creatures, such as the wind, the rain, the years, the days, 
fire, &c, is no blasphemy, unless the one who curses, expressly connects them 
in relation to God, by saying 1 , for instance, cursed be the fire of God, the bread 
of God," &c. Ligor. Prax. Conf. N. 30. 

Again : the Roman Catholic rule of faith sanctions a violation of the 
third commandment. 

— ; "To curse the living is a mortal sin, when it is 

formal; that is, (as Cajetan explains it,) when he who curses intends and wishes 
a grievous evil to befall the one he curses: but it is no mortal sin to curse the 
living, when the curse pronounced is merely material; that is, when k is pro- 
nounced without any evil intention. And why is it not a mortal sin? — because 
he who curses a living man does not always intend to curse the soul, or to de- 
spise its substance, in which, in an especial manner, the image of God shines 
forth, but he curses the man without considering, or reflecting about his soul, 
and therefore, in cursing him he does not commit a grievous sin." Id. ib. 29. 

License is given to violate, in some way or other, every precept of 
the Decalogue. The Sabbath as a divine institution is thus set aside : 

— "As to the obligation of hearing" 

the Holy Thing," (which is the popish epithet for attending mass,) " let the 
penitent be questioned in regard to whether he has omitted that Holy Thing?" 
(to attend mass.) " As to servile works, let him be asked how long he has 
worked? and what kind of work he did? for, according to the doctors generally, 
those who work two hours are excused from grievous sin; nay, other doctors 
allow more, especially if the labor be light, or if there be some more notable 
reason. Let him also be asked, why he labored; whether it was the custom of 
the place, or whether it was from necessity? Because poverty can excuse from 
sin in working on the Sabbath ; as the poor are generally excused, who, if they 
do not labor on the Sabbath, cannot support themselves or their families; as they 
also are excused who sew upon the Sabbath, because they cannot do it on other 
days." Id. ib. N. 32, 33. [Synopsis, pp. 52, 53. 

"Merchandising, and the selling of goods at auction on the Sundays, is, on ac- 
count of its being the general custom, altogether lawful." "Buying and selling 
goods on the Lord's day and on festival days, are certainly forbidden by the canon- 
ical law — but where the contrary custom prevails, it is excusable." Id. ib. N. 293. 
[Synopsis, p. 192. 

" He who performs any servile 

work on the Lord's day, or on a festival day, let him do penance three days on 
bread and water. If any one break the fasts prescribed by the church, let him 
do penance on bread and water twenty days." — [Synopsis, p. 115. 
R Q5 



194 DEBATE ON THE 

" The pope has the right and the power to decree, that the sanctification of the 
Lord's day, shall only continue a few hours, and that servile works may be 
done on that day." Id. ib. [Synopsis, p. 188. 

Custom, indeed, is fast becoming 1 , as St. Ligori teaches, an excuse 
for any thing. The traditions of fathers, the canons of councils, the 
decrees of popes — all wear away by the attrition of custom. Hence, in 
a Roman Catholic population, pure and unmixed, there is a degree of 
grossness of immorality, that Romanists themselves could not endure 
in Protestant countries. Even the morals of New Orleans could not 
be endured in Cincinnati. There, it is custom to go to mass in the 
morning, to muster at noon, and to go to the theatre in the evening on 
the Lord's day. This is indeed, the custom, or something very like 
it, in all Roman Catholic countries. 

On stealing, in general the casuist directs as follows : 

" In respect to the seventh commandment,'' says the saint, 

"let the confessor ask the penitent if he has stolen any thing? and from whom, 
whether it was from one person, or from different persons? whether he was alone, 
or with others, and whether it was once or oftener? Because, if at each time 
he stole a considerable amount, at each time he sinned mortally. But on the 
contrary, if at each time he stole a small amount, then he did not sin grievously, 
unless the articles stolen came to a considerable amount; provided, however, that 
in the beginning, he had not the intention of stealing to a large amount; but 
when the amount already stolen has become considerable, although he did not 
sin grievously, yet he is bound under a grievous sin, to restitution; at least, as to 
the last portions that he stole by which the amount became considerable. It is 
to be observed, however, that a larger sum is required to constitute a heavy 
amount in small thefts, and more is required if the things are stolen from differ- 
ent persons, than if they were stolen from the same person; hence, it is said, that 
in small thefts, which are made at different times, double the sum is required to 
constitute what is to be considered a large amount. And if a considerable time 
intervene between the thefts, for instance, two months, then the theft probably 
does not amount to a grievous sin." Id. ib. N. 42. 

On stealing to pay masses : 

" If the person is unknown," continues the 

saint, " from whom another has stolen, the penitent is obliged to restitution, 
either by having masses said, or by bestowing alms on the poor, or by making 
presents for pious places," by which the saint means churches, nunneries, &c. ; 
" and if the person himself is poor, he can retain the amount stolen for the use 
of his family. But if the person on whom the theft has been committed, is 
known, to him the restitution is to be made; wherefore, it is wonderful, indeed, 
that there are to be found so many confessors so ignorant, that, although they 
know who the creditor is, enjoin upon the penitent, that, of the stolen goods, 
which they ought to restore, they bestow alms, or have masses said. It is to be 
observed, that if any one takes the property of another, or retains it, under the 
presumption, that if he were to ask it of the owner, he would willingly give it to 
him, he ought not to be obliged to make restitution." Id. ib. !N. 44. 

Thus we see theft can be made available to the behoof of priests in 
saying masses — what they ought to say, and by the old canons, are 
bound to say gratis. 

On lying. There is a way of making lying no lying : 

" Relatively to the ninth commandment, of popery the 

eighth, the saint proceeds as follows: — " In regard to the reparation of the char- 
acter of a person, if the fault of which he has been accused, is false, he who 
defames him is bound to retract. But if the fault is true, the defamation that is 
given ought to be looked upon in the most favorable light that it can be without 
lying: let the penitent say, for example, [byway of excuse,] " I was deceived, 
I erred." Others also admit that he can equivocate, by saying, I lied, since every 
sin is a lie, as the scripture says. Again, by an equivocation, he may say * I only 
made this up in my head,' since all words which proceed from the mind may be 
said to come from the head ; since the head is taken for the mind." Id. ib. JN". 46. 
[Synopsis, p. 56. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 195 

The difference between insulting or dishonoring one's parents and 
a spiritual father, bishop or pastor : 

" He who curses his parents, let him do penance, on bread and water, forty 
days. He who insults his parents, three years. If any one rebel against his 
bishop, pastor, and father, let him do penance in a monastery, during his whole 
life." — [Synopsis, p. 116. 

Rules given to confessors : 

"The saint continues: "The confessor 

ought to be extremely cautious how he hears the confession of women, and he 
should particularly bear in mind what is said in the holy congregation of bishops, 
21, Jan. 1610. " Confessors should not, without necessity, hear the confessions 
of women after dusk, or before twilight." In regard to the prudence of a con- 
fessor, he ought, in general, rather to be rigid with young women in the confes- 
sional than bland; neither ought he to allow them to come to him before confes- 
sion to converse with him; much less should he allow them to kiss his hands. It 
is also imprudent for the confessor to let his eyes wander after his female peni- 
tents, and to gaze upon them as they are retiring from confession. The confes- 
sor should never receive presents from his female penitents; and he should be 
particularly careful not to visit them at their houses, except in case of severe ill- 
ness; nor should he visit them then, unless he be sent for. In this case he should 
be very cautious in what manner he hears their confessions; therefore the door 
should be left open, and he should sit in a place where he can be seen by others, 
and he should never fix his eyes upon the face of his penitient; especially if they 
be spiritual persons, in regard to whom, the danger of attraction is greater. The 
venerable father Sertorius Capotus says,that the devil, in order to unite spiritu- 
al persons together, always makes use of the pretext of virtue, that, being mu- 
tually affected by these virtues, the passion may pass from their virtues over to 
their persons. Hence, says St. Augustin, according to St. Thomas, confessors, 
in hearing the confessions of spiritual women, ought to be brief and rigid ; neither 
are they the less to be guarded against on account of their being holy; for the 
more holy they are, the more they attract." And he adds, "that such persons 
are not aware that the devil does not, at first, lance his poisoned arrows, but 
those only which touch but lightly and thereby increase the affection. Hence it 
happens, that such persons do not conduct themselves as they did at first, like 
angels, but as if they were clothed with flesh. But, on the contrary, they mutu- 
ally eye one another, and their minds are captivated with the soft and tender ex- 
pressions which pass between them, and which still seem to them to proceed from 
the first fervors of their devotion : hence they soon begin to long for each other's 
company; and thus, he concludes, ' the spiritual devotion is converted into car- 
nal. And, indeed, O, how many priests, who before were innocent, have, on ac- 
count of these attractions, which began in the spirit, lost both God and their 
soul!' " Id. ib. N. 119. 

The saint proceeds: "Moreover, the confessor ought not to be so fond of 
hearings the confessions of women, as to be induced thereby to refuse to hear the 
confessions of men. O, how wretched it is to see so many confessors, who spend 
the greater part of the day in hearing the confessions of certain religious wom- 
en, who are called Bizocas," (a kind of secular nuns,) " and when they after- 
wards see men or married women coming to confession to them, overwhelmed 
in the cares and troubles of life, and who can hardly spare time to leave their 
homes, or business, how wretched it is to see these confessors dismiss them, say- 
ing, ' / have something else to attend to: go to some other confessor" hence it 
happens, that, not finding any other confessor to whom to confess, they live du- 
ring months and years without the sacraments, and without God!" Id. ib. N. 
120. [Synopsis, p. 78. 

The Romanist rule of faith both in word and deed places the Virgin 
Mary above Christ, in the religious homage of the church. 

" Nuns," says the saint, " ought to 

have a special devotion towards St. Joseph, towards their guardian angel, and 
their tutelary saint, and principally towards St. Michael, the universal patron of 
all the faithful, but above all towards the most holy Virgin Mary, who is called by 
the church our life and our hope; for it is morally impossible for a soul to advance 
much in perfection, without a particular and a certain tender devotion towards 
the most holy mother of God." Id. ib. N. 171. 



196 DEBATE ON THE 

" Our life and our hope /" These words are in Protestant faith and 
Bible propriety due to the Lord alone. — We cannot have two lives ; and 
two hopes ; and if Mary is our life and hope, the Lord Jesus is not. 
I before alluded to this person under the Roman name of a being call- 
ed "the mother of God ;" which my opponent, as his manner is, served 
up rhetorically, as if to produce a sympathy in favor of the superstitious 
veneration of his party. He had not, however, a Roman Catholic 
audience. I meant no disrespect to any person. I know that the more 
intelligent Romanists discard the phrase as too gross and unauthorized. 
There is no being in the universe, say they, who ought to be called 
the mother of God, I had in my eye at the moment some wretched de- 
signs in some Roman churches, a scandal to any christian people : a 
sort of family group, in which there is the picture of a venerable old 
man, said to represent the Father of the universe — next an old woman, 
the image of the Virgin Mary, and between them the picture of the 
" holy child, Jesus." It has disgusted the more intelligent Romanists. 
This family of divinities is much more in the style of the Pantheon, or 
the poetry of Hesiod, than in the spirit, or letter, or taste of Christianity. 

While on this subject we shall hear the moral theology of the church 
on the use of images ; and, first, of the use of the virgin Mary's image : 

" Let him, who is in the habit of blaspheming, be advised to make the sign of 
the cross [f] ten or fifteen times a day, upon the ground with his tongue: and 
thrice every morning, to say to the most blessed Virgin: \ O, my Lordess! give 
me patience.' " Id. ib. N. 16. Synopsis, pp. 44, 45. 

" Daily to visit the most holy sacrament, and the image of the most holy Mary, 
to beg of them the grace of per severance. " Id. ib. N. 14. 

" O my Lordess, give me patience !" Is not this idolatry 1 To beg 
of the image of the virgin the grace of perseverance ! ! ! No wonder 
that these folks find it expedient to expunge the second commandment, 
which says, "Thou shalt not worship an image" — no, "Thou shalt 
not bow down to it." But we shall hear the directions given concern- 
ing the divine mother : 

" The saint now proceeds to give instruction to the pa- 
rish priest how to lead his flock in the way of " salvation." " Let him be watch- 
ful," says he, " to render his flock studious in their devotion towards the Virgin 
Mary, by declaring to them how merciful this DIVINE MOTHER is in succor- 
ing those who are devout to her." Id. c. X. N. 216. " Therefore," continues 
the saint, " let him intimate to them, that they daily recite, in common with their 
families, five decades of the Rosary; that they fast upon Saturday, and celebrate 
Novenas upon the festivals of our Lordess (nostrae Dominse.) Lastly, and above 
all, let the parish priest intimate to his flock, that they become accustomed often 
to commend themselves to God, begging of him holy perseverance through the 
merits of Jesus Christ and of Mary." Id. ib. 

" A certain image of the 

Redeemer," so says the saint, "once upon a certain occasion, spoke to the ven- 
erable brother Bernard of Corlion, who begged of the image to let him know 
whether it wished him to learn to read? and the crucifix answered, * What will 
it avail thee to learn to read? What are books to thee? I am thy book, — this is 
enough for thee." Id. ib. N. 220. 

" Now, that this is the very kind of reading that papists, or at least, those who 
wish to be saints, are addicted to, let us turn to the great Bernard, and hear 
what he says on the subject of such books. This saint, speaking of the Romish 
churches, exclaims, " There is so great, and such an astonishing variety of dif- 
ferent figures (images) presented on all sides, to the view, that the people prefer 
reading upon the marble stones, than reading in books, and to spend the whole 
day in wondering at these things, rather than in meditating upon the Law of 
God." Bernard, Apol. p. 992. The same saint says, " The bishops excite the 
devotion of a carnal minded people by corporal ornaments, because they cannot 
do it by spiritual." Id. ib. The saint does not mean that their devotion is ex- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 197 

cited by such shows, for just before, he said, that these carnal minded people 
" preferred spending- the whole day in wondering at these things, rather than 
to be meditating on the law of God." He could have meant nothing else there- 
fore, than that these splendid images were placed in the churches under the 
pretence of exciting dovotion, while the real object was, that the " foolish 
people," (as he calls them,) "might BESTOW A GIFT." Id. ib. "O Crux ave, 
spes unica!" "Hail, O Cross, our only hope!" as exclaims the Romish church 
in her " BREVIARY." 

"Besides the little images of 

Christ crucified, and of the Blessed Virgin," continues the saint, "which the 
priest ought to be careful to place near the sick person, if it can be done, let 
him also place before his eyes large images of the Mother of God, and the Re- 
deemer, that the sick man, turn which way he will, may see them and commend 
himself to them." Id. ib. N. 235. 

So much for this lesson on the morality of the Romanist rule of 
faith. On these matters we have not time to comment. For those 
who think they need a comment, my worthy friend knows how to 
manage the cause admirably ! His talents suit this exigency. He is 
fluent in all the dogmas of Catholicism. To these he has devoted 
many years and is a good judge of a certain class of human nature. 
He knows the power of a laugh — an anecdote — a sigh — a compliment 
— a picture — and, above all, he knows how much it weighs, with one 
class, to say, with a triumphant air, " There's logic for you !" " what 
an argument is that !" "I have proved it now I" " this is sound logic J" 
"my friend Mr. C. feels it — it is the badness of his cause — my cause- 
is so good, so ancient, so venerable, so holy, so catholic!" &c. &c. I 
say, in this sort of rhetoric, my learned opponent is an adept. It has 
only one fault, it is too luscious sometimes, and he lays it on rather 
thick, to stick long upon the audience. He is performing his part 
nobly ! For myself, I regard all this as a grave, serious, scriptural and 
rational discussion; I expect the good feelings of my audience, of 
which I am already conscious, only by addressing myself to their un- 
derstanding, and in the cool argumentative dignity of reason, fact, and 
argument. But really, no man, in my knowledge, could sustain the 
Romanist cause better than my learned and ingenious respondent ; and 
if he fails, Roman Catholicism in the West need not look for an abler 
defendant. 

My friend has admitted the seven methods of electing popes, but 
says it is no matter how they are chosen. Americans ! How would you 
relish such doctrine in respect to your governors, judges, and presi- 
dents ] If some city or county in this state should elect a governor 
for the whole state, would it make no difference to you 1 Should your 
chief magistrate be elected by a mob, by a party, or by force, or brib- 
ery, would you say it matters not — the virtue is in the office, no matter 
how the incumbent has come into hi I 

The " Palladium" and " Baptist Banner" prove as much against 
Protestantism, and for Catholicism, as they deal in ribaldry and per- 
sonal abuse. If these are arguments on which the bishop relies, they 
may be good authority for him ; but, for myself, I need no such logic, 
and my cause disdains such auxiliaries. He has great use for Unita- 
rians also, and sometimes for Universalists, and even Quakers ; but 
in his last argument he has mistaken the point. These all appeal, in 
their controversies, to the bible alone, just as the Jansenists and Jesu- 
its, the Dominicans, Bernardites, Benedictines, Franciscans, &c. &c. 
while they have disliked and opposed one another, all acknowledge the 
pope as supreme head of the church, the judge of controversies. 
R 2 



198 DEBATE ON THE 

I am glad that he has at last admitted that the Jansenists in all essen- 
tials are Catholics, and that they are repudiated only for a difference 
of opinion. But where now are his t objections against Du Pin? He 
objected to him that he was a Jansenist, as if a difference in opinion 
destroys the credibility of a witness — a principle that forever roots up 
all history ; for no one upon this principle is authentic, unless he be a 
Roman Catholic ; nor then, unless a Jesuit, and this is equivalent to 
saying, that no one is authentic unless he bear witness for him. — [Time 
expired.] 

Twelve o'clock, M. 
Bishop Purcejll rises — 

I shall begin where my friend left off. I am charged with appeal- 
ing to the feeling, and not to the reason of my hearers : " rny rhetoric 
is too luscious ; I lay it on too thick ; it won't stick," &c. &c. Well ! 
if my rhetoric is too luscious, that of my friend is too insipid ; if 
mine is too thick, his is too thin. The fallacy it would cover, grins 
through the flimsy gossamer : the weakest eyes can see it beneath 
the veil. But I trust, I need not offer any vindication of my argu- 
ments to this assembly. They are able, and, I thank God, willing, 
too, to judge for themselves. They see that all, or the main force of 
my friend consists of two renegade priests, Smith and Du Pin. 
These are the two pillars of his logic. The published volume will 
shew how superior and how honest are mine. In the oral debate, I ad- 
dress the judgment, without neglecting the heart : and if I did pre- 
sent my argument chiefly to the former, it *would be because of an 
observation of the celebrated John Randolph, in the Virginia conven- 
tion for altering the constitution of the state. Speaking of my learn- 
ed opponent, who was a delegate to that convention. Randolph said, 
" He had politics in his heart and religion in his head." I cannot 
vouch for the authenticity of the anecdote, I have just heard it. I hope 
it was not founded in fact — [Mr. C. explained — Mr. Randolph had 
never said so to him.] I proceed to more important matters. I did 
not pretend to day that an informal election had any force. But that 
any form on which the entire church agreed, according to the majority 
principle governing our own elections, was valid. It was Christ who 
drafted the constitution of our church. I do not much like to see any 
comparison instituted between it and the works of human legislators. 
But if closely examined, it will be found to contain the excellencies, 
while it excludes the defects of the most popular forms of civil go- 
vernment. We have a perfect feature of the Republican Model, in 
this, that with us, merit is the grand criterion of fitness for office. No 
favoritism is allowed. No matter how humble the parentage or ob- 
scure the kindred of the individual, virtue, talent and common sense 
are sure, sooner, or later, to elevate him to any situation he may be 
advised to accept. The church often selects her chief officers, as 
God did David, " from the flocks of sheep," Ps. 7. viii. 70. from the 
humblest walks of life. It is to this system, of giving merit a fair 
field, that we are indebted for the brightest ornaments in civil so- 
ciety, a Curran, chosen for his intelligent blue eye, his wit and 
archness, from among his playmates, w T hen "they that wort, laughed, 
and they that lost cheated ,•" as is very often the case. 

To finish the conversion of the Jew, when I discontinued my ar- 
gument, at half past eleven, on different principles. He knew there 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 199 

was a synagogue which the people were bound to consult, by the ex- 
press command of God, and that it was no servility, it was blasphemy 
against God and often visited with the heaviest penalties, even in this 
life, to oppose its authority, or to contradict its teaching. He is 
therefore prepared to hear of authority in religion — in fact, the syna- 
gogue was a type of the church, its introduction — as the church is 
the fulfilment and the consummation of the teaching and testimony 
of the law. The Jew having had reason to question the truth of his 
religion, for which, he remembers he had often read, a better was to 
be substituted, and aware that the time marked so distinctly by the 
prophets for the coming of the Messiah, has long ago past, he looks 
for any religious society, that can illustrate the splendid prophecies of 
Isaiah, respecting the catholicity, or universal diffusion and the dura- 
tion of the church, from the time of the crucified one. He has only 
to open his eyes to see that the Catholic church extends the dominion 
of Christ, the limits of his spiritual kingdom from sea, to sea. Then 
he looks at the other denominations. He finds none of the qualities of 
such a kingdom, in them. They are not Catholic, they are not old, 
they are not uniform. They are the contrary of all this. This is enough 
for him. He uses his reason, thus far, alone, because he is not yet 
baptized. Like the wise men, he follows the light of that star, until 
he reaches Jerusalem — when its light fails him, there, as the star did 
them, he asks, as they did, of authority, where the truth may be found, 
and reason and revelation concur to shew it to him in the church. 
He consigns himself to its guidance, he becomes a Catholic — and 
reason tells him, every day, he has done right. He lives and he dies 
without a doubt of the soundness of his decision, for this blessed 
security is the distinctive character of the Catholic. All other creeds 
based on the essential maxim of their fallibility, leaves the human 
mind, in life and death, a prey to the most torturing anxiety. But I 
have not done with this very instructive incident in the discussion. 
If the Jew witnesses an occasional scandal in the church, he calls to 
mind how Adam fell in Eden, and Aaron fell, at the foot of the smok- 
ing Sinai, and Heli and his Sons, the priests, fell in Silo, and that 
Christ said not, reject a religion, whose ministers have, personally, 
transgressed, but on the contrary, that he said: " Upon the chair of 
Moses have sitten the Sc?*ihes and the Pharisees, All things therefore, 
whatsoever they shall say to you, observe ye and do ye .• hut according to 
their works, do ye not, for they say and do not. Thus truth is not 
abandoned ; if the bad liver meets his merited doom. 

I now come to all that farrago of the Renegade Smith's translation 
of Liguori. My friend says the Catholic rule is immoral. He ap- 
proached this topic with so much reluctance, and with so many strug- 
gles, that, conscious of his having nothing true to produce against 
Catholic morality, I was going to say to him, "speak out." But I didn't, 
and now he has said all. Well, what does it amount to ? Why to 
this, that the Catholic church is blackened, but beautiful (Nigra sum, 
sed formosa, as the spouse says in the canticle). She is, though 
misrepresented, fair, though slandered, pure. If a Catholic were 
always what his church teaches, and the sacraments she is appointed 
by Christ to minister, give him grace, to be, he would be an orna- 
ment to human nature, as well as to his faith. But " the Catholic 
rule is immoral and dispenses with the law of God." No ; it enfor- 
ces dreadful penalties here and eternal torments hereafter, for a viola- 



200 DEBATE ON THE 

tion of the law. If her ministers make any mitigation of her strict 
code of morals in consequence of the arduous duties, weak health, 
or other circumstances of her children, she teaches them, that if the 
alleged motives of such mitigation do not, indeed, exist, it is not 
" a faithful dispensation, but a cruel dissipation" of the heavenly or- 
dinances ; that the priest has no power but what he derives from God, 
and that God will infallibly inflict all the rigors of his vengeance for 
its abuse, as well on the priest, as on the people. If all the priests 
and bishops in the world were to pronounce the words of absolution 
over a sinner, in whose heart God did not see true sorrow for his fault, 
with a sincere resolution to sin no more, the absolution would be null 
and void, and the horrid crime of sacrilege superadded to the previous 
guilt of the transgressor. The hope of the hypocrite shall perish, 
says the scripture. We have a maxim, which must make the pope 
and bishops and priests, as well as the laity tremble, when we 
approach the dread tribunal of penance. It is this : " a good confes- 
sion is the key of Heaven, a bad one is the key of Hell." How ad- 
mirable are the lessons read today from Liguori — and they were faith- 
fully rendered for a sinister motive — and how well does the Catholic 
church describe the perils and the obligations of their sacred office to 
her ministers ! Hence it is that we assume our religious robes and hear 
confessions in the open church, where are also our confessionals, 
under the eyes of all. If Liguori were the immoral man that Smith 
would make him, would he have given such lessons to the clergy 
and pointed out so impressively the dangerous consequences of a single 
indiscretion, or the slightest familiarity on the occasions to which he 
was adverting ? "I made a covenant with my eyes, says Job, xxxi. 1, 
that I would not so much as think of a virgin ; for what part should 
God from above have in me, and what inheritance the Almighty from 
on high V Liguori says : " He that does any servile work on the 
Lord's day, let him do penance, three days, on bread and water." To 
what does my friend object in this, on the score of immorality'? Is 
it the enforcing of the observance of the sabbath ] Surely that is not 
immoral. Is it to the severity of the penalty ] But did not God ordain 
the pain of death against the man who gathered a few sticks on the 
sabbath] Liguori allows work on the sabbath, on certain occasions. — 
So do we. — Doctors work on the sabbath, without sin. So do printers, 
though I think not always, especially when they publish pious lies 
against the Catholics. "Which of you, says Christ, whose ox, or his 
ass, falls into a pit, will not quickly draw him out, on the sabbath. 
If a house is on fire on the sabbath, will not the Presbyterian bell 
ring and the citizens haul out the hose and engines 1 Will we not 
save the harvest, on a Sunday 1 New Orleans' profanity on the sab- 
bath ! Why, they are not all Catholics, many of them are infidels and 
Protestants, who there break the sabbath — and their sin, though bad 
enough, is not so bad as theirs, who, as it has been done elsewhere, 
meet in gangs for forgeries and other such frauds, on the sabbath. 
" Custom is fast becoming an excuse for every thing." — No where does 
Liguori say this. I call for the original. Let Mr. C. produce his 
proof, if he can. If he cannot, what will this community think of him 1 
" The Romanist rule of faith places the Virgin Mary above Christ." 
It does no such a thing. It says " cursed be every Goddess worship- 
er," while it renders " honor to whom honor" We know and pro- 
fess that the mother has no Dower but what she derives from the Son. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 201 

To Him, we say : " have mercy on us ;" to her " pray for us." Mr. 
C. says, " No being in the universe should be called mother of God." 
Was not Christ God] And does not the gospel call Mary, his mo- 
ther 1 Did not one hundred and fifty eight bishops so call her, in the 
year 431, in the council of Ephesus? Who is the intelligent Catho- 
lic, as my opponent states, who is ashamed of what the gospel and 
the church sanction 1 I ask who is he 1 Let us have his name. 
The streets of Ephesus rung with loud applause when the decision of 
the council was announced, vindicating the name and dignity of the 
mother of God, and the words M*/>/*t Qvratos were echoed from mouth to 
mouth, mingled with the most joyful and exulting cries of the populace, 
to the consternation of Nestorianism. 'Son! behold thy mother!' were a- 
mong the last words spoken by the expiring Savior on the cross. Will my 
opponent call them ill timed at that hour, when all was consummated ! 

" The Catholic rule makes a distinction between mortal and venial 
sins." And why should it not ! Does not the bible, which propor- 
tions the penalty to the offence, does not the civil law, which punish- 
es not every offence alike, does not common sense point out the dis- 
tinction 1 ? Is it as great a sin for a child to tell a little, white lie to 
excuse itself, as for a son to whet the razor and cut his father's throat? 
I am sensible that a lie is never innocent. Nor do I excuse it under 
any circumstances — but it is of various shades of guilt, according to 
the circumstances when it is uttered. I know of national legislatures 
which give a bribe of forty pounds per annum to an apostate priest, to 
tempt him by filthy lucre to act against his conscience — and which 
not so many years ago, encouraged a son to turn Protestant, by em- 
powering him to take his father's estate and turn both his aged pa- 
rents and with them his brothers and sisters, if they persisted in be- 
ing Catholics, out of doors, and it would be easy for me to prove that 
this law was passed by many Protestant ministers, and that it was not 
over scrupulous in point of morality in papistical distinction between 
moral and venial sins ; but let us have more of Smith's translation of 
Liguori, he says ' let stolen money be paid for masses 1 No ; he says 
first, let the rightful owner be hunted out by the penitent thief, and 
to him let the restitution be made. If he can be no longer found, let 
the money be given for masses, for his spiritual benefit, or distributed, 
for his sake, in alms to the poor, and what better use could be made 
of it — what better counsel given ] 

Another proof of Catholic immorality is that we are bound to go 
once a year to confession ! Where the immorality of this is, I cannot 
conceive. Is it not good to be obliged to examine, at least, once a 
year, if not more frequently, the state of our consciences and to con- 
fess ourselves sinners 1 Is not this an admirable institution for the 
acquiring of the best kind of knowledge, the knowledge of oneself? 
Is it not worthy of God 1 Is it not God himself that instituted it 1 
Did he not leave to his church, the power of binding and loosing from 
sin, when he said to his apostles, after having mysteriously breathed 
upon them and given them the Holy Ghost, " Whose sins you shall 
forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you shall retain, they are 
retained : Whatever you shall bind on earth, it shall be bound in 
Heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed in 
Heaven." John xx. 22, 23. And my friend quoted St. Thomas 
Aquin, and St. Augustin, as well as Liguori, for the holy rules the 
priest must observe, in hearing confessions. That establishes the im- 

26 



202 DEBATE ON THE 

portant fact, that in the last century, and in the fourteenth, and as far 
back as the fifth age, the practice of confession existed, as it does at 
the present day. In every age from the time of Christ it has been 
practised, and experience has proved it the most effectual restraint 
that religion has ever imposed upon vice, on passion, and on human 
frailty. Who can tell what crimes it has arrested 1 What virtue it has 
preserved and purified 1 What restitutions, of reputation and of for- 
tune it has caused to be made ] How many sinners it has stopt in the 
down-hill path to destruction] Voltaire and Chillingworth and a hun- 
dred others, not Catholics, have pronounced the most splendid eulo- 
gies on confession. These disinterested witnesses will furnish you 
ample proof on this point. But my friend before he closed, uttered 
one word, while he read from the catechism of the council of Trent 
"fixing aprice, #*c." for the forgiveness of sin. Now in the name of 
truth, in the name of this community, I ask him for the proof, for I 
pronounce it absolutely false. 

Mr. C. explained that he did not say it was done by the council of 
Trent. 

He says that we have exalted the confessional to an equality with 
the throne of grace. Well might it be the footstool of that throne, 
if its pure principles were carried out. On the throne, or in the con- 
fessional, it is the same God that pardons the penitent sinner. — [Time 
expired.] 

Three o'clock P. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

The gentleman challenged me this morning upon an important 
point, viz. that Protestants cannot make an act of faith — that is, be 
perfectly certain in their belief of the holy scriptures, or of Jesus Christ. 
I accept the challenge. It now only remains for him to appoint the 
time when, and the place where, and I will meet him on that point. 
But that is not the question for to-day. Let him not think to take me 
off, by raising incidental and foreign questions. They may remove 
the ennui of the audience for a while ; but his time would have been 
better spent in answering my allegations on the great question. I 
have heard not one answer, as yet, to the question, " What gives gen- 
eral councils their infallibility]" and various other points of great 
moment to his cause : to which he had better attend, than to propose 
new debates. I will remind him of another question which he had 
better solve. ' How can a thousand fallibles make one infallible ? ' Do 
they, by meeting together, become infallible 1 or, by an ecclesiastic 
combination, give out infallibility 1 This would have been more in- 
structive than much of what the gentleman has given us. He obser- 
ved at one time that the Jansenists were a Roman Catholic sect. But 
again, he says, that they are not Roman Catholics at all ! To pre- 
serve the union of the church, their plan is a very easy one. When 
persons dissent, cut them off. While Jansenists agree with the 
majority of the church, call them good Catholics : when they dissent, 
as they do in some very cardinal matters, call them heretics in the 
bosom of the church : but not of it. But the gentleman's explana- 
tion of the council of Trent will never satisfy Protestants. The coun- 
cil of Trent at one session, had forty-eight bishops, forty-five of 
whom were very ordinary men. They decided that the Apocrypha 
and the Vulgate were authentic ; that the Latin Vulgate is the true and 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 203 

only authentic copy, more authentic than the Greek original. These 
matters had often been discussed before amongst Romanists ; but were 
finally adjudicated by the council of Trent. The modern doctrine of 
Catholics is, that a simple majority is infallible. " That the opin- 
ions adopted by the majority of the bishops are for an infallible rule 
of faith ." So says the worthy bishop of Strasburg; but the proof is 
another matter. Now the present doctrine is, that twenty-five bish- 
ops, being the majority of forty-eight, are infallible. The opinion of a 
majority of a council, then, is the essence of infallibility. Father 
Paul, who writes the history of the council of Trent, a good Catholic, 
truly ! says, ' beardless youths were sent to that council by the pope 
to obtain majorities for his measures — That the pope sent packed ju- 
ries, who in every question were expected to support his measures.' 
So provoked was the good Catholic with the aberrations of Trent, that 
he solemnly asserts that the bishops of Trent were " a pack of incar- 
nate demons." I think I quote his very words. He was complaining 
that the pope had hired and sent off young men from every part of 
the empire to vote as he pleased to dictate. So much for the infalli- 
bility of oecumenical councils. 

My friend has pronounced glowing encomiums upon the pure vir- 
ginity of the Roman priesthood, and has extolled the purity of celib- 
acy, as essential to perfect holiness. That these priests have not been 
such immaculate purities, half the decrees of these very councils attest. 
Half their legislation is about the specks and blemishes of this vir- 
gin priesthood, as if they assembled for the purpose of hiding their 
shame. The bishop quoted Rev. xiv. 4. and was not ashamed before 
this audience to apply it to marriage. I blushed for our audience, 
and could not but be shocked with the freedom of attack upon the or- 
dinance of God. Marriage is the oldest and most venerable institu- 
tion in the history of man. God himself instituted and celebrated it, 
on the flowery banks of Eden in the state of primeval innocence and 
bliss. It was then and there said : u It is not good for man to be alone," 
I believe with Paul that marriage is honorable in all. And as for pu- 
rity ; earth knows no purer, no holier state than that of holy wedlock. 
And could I tell — or dare I tell before this assembly, but half that I 
have learned of that virgin state of which my friend has spoken with 
such warmth ; he would be slow to learn who could not perceive, 
that "forbidding to marry," one of Paul's attributes of the grand 
apostacy, has been the fons et principium, the fountain of untold pol- 
lutions in the hierarchy of Rome. In times of persecution, and of 
great distress, it may, indeed, be prudent, as Paul advised on such oc- 
casions, to refrain from marriage, and for some great and laudable 
purpose, it may be convenient, to prefer a single state ; but that youth, 
male or female, who for the sake of greater purity prefers celibacy, 
has yet to learn the very first principles of both religion and morality ; 
and is as far out of the tract of truth and reason, as he that would cut 
off his own hands to prevent him from plunder. 

It is essential, in my opinion, that the bishop be a married man. 
Indeed, the Holy Spirit by Paul has decreed, that he should be the 
husband of one wife. As my opponent is a bachelor, I ought, per- 
haps to ask his pardon. Did he, indeed, possess all the other qual- 
ifications, I should withhold my vote to his becoming a bishop so long 
as he continued a "virgin." To preside over a christian congrega- 
tion, he should have all a christian's feelings and experience. He 



204 DEBATE ON THE 

should know experimentally the domestic affections and relations. 
He should study human nature in the bosom of his family. There is 
a class of feelings, which no gentleman, of single life, can compre- 
hend ; or in which he can sympathise : and these are essential to that 
intimacy with all classes, sexes and duties, which his relations to the 
church often impose on him. If he does not know how to rule a sin- 
gle family, and to enter into all its customs and feelings with practi- 
cal skill, how can he take care of the church of God 1 So argues 
Paul : and so must I reason and judge. 

Next to his remarks against marriage, as necessarily less pure than 
celibacy; I was sorry to hear the gentleman defending "white lies," 
and " little sins." When I think of the nature of sin, and the holy 
and immutable laws of God, against whom it is committed, I see no 
difference between one sin and another. There may be great and lit- 
tle sins as to their temporal relations and consequences : but when HE 
against whom every sin is committed, and that divine and holy law, 
which is violated in the least offence, is considered ; we must say with 
the apostle James, " He that offendeth in one point is guilty of all." 
It may be the veriest peccadillo on earth : but in Heaven's account, 
one sin would ruin a world, as it has done, for he that keeps the whole 
law and yet offends in the least point, is guilty of all. He that said, 
not a jot or tittle of his law shall fall to the ground — He that magni- 
fied his law and made it honorable, will suffer no person to add to — 
to substract from, to change or to violate a single point with impunity. 

I wish the gentleman would come up to the point and defend his 
Catholic rule, that T might fully deliver myself on this subject; but I 
have as yet given a very few instances of the impurities and immoral- 
ities of his rule of faith. But from the specimen given, I would ask, 
does it not teach the worship of creatures and the images of creatures — 
does it not countenance idolatry] Does it not command the invo- 
cation of the spirits of dead men and women 1 Are not multi- 
tudes of saints invoked, of whose abode in heaven there is no witness 
on earth? Does it not pay religious homage to beings, who by nature 
are not God? Does it not blaspheme the name of God, and his apos- 
tles and prophets, who are in heaven? And, may I not add — does it 
not annul the laws of God, and by a system of unparalleled casuistry 
set aside every moral obligation 1 

The gentleman represented confession as a christian duty. So it is ; 
but not auricular confession ; not confession to a priest. Leo I. opened the 
flood-gates of impurity by ordering and substituting private confession 
to a priest; for public confession before the whole congregation. The 
last entrenchment against the rapid declensions of public morals in the 
fifth century, was broken down by their dispensing with public for 
secret confession. All sensible historians, or, rather, commentators 
on historic facts, agree that there was no greater check to flagitious 
offences than bringing the defaulter before the whole congregation ; and 
this being commuted into auricular confession, inundated the church 
with unparalleled impurities and immoralities. " Confess your faults 
one to another," is not, whisper your faults into the ears of your priest ! 
Why do not the priests, on this their proof, confess their faults to the 
people 1 — confess to one another! But this authorizes no man, no woman, 
to degrade themselves by falling upon their knees before an old or young 
bachelor, and telling to him all their impure and sinful thoughts, words 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 205 

and actions. And ought he then to say, as if the sin were committed 
against him, " I absolve thee V 9 This is the climax of folly on the 
part of the penitent, and of impiety on the part of the priest ! 

There is no ear but God's to which our errors and our faults ought 
to be confessed. The secrets of all hearts are his ; and he has gra- 
ciously assured us that he will hear the acknowledgment and peniten- 
tial confessions of all who approach him through the one Mediator* Is 
there more condescension or mercy in a Roman priest than in God 1 
No, my friends, there is no ear more ready to hear than his ; and he 
only can forgive. To suppose the contrary, mistakes wholly the chris- 
tian institution, and argues consummate ignorance of God. It is wholly 
incompatible with the genius of the religion, and repugnant to both the 
law and gospel. And with what propriety, modesty, piety, males and 
females, old and young, should mutter their sins and secrets into the 
ears of any bachelor, priest, or confessor, as if his ears were a common 
sewer — or conduit to carry down to oblivion the impurities of mortals, 
I cannot even conjecture, unless to give them power over the penitents. 
I opine that I am yet in the pale of logic, though I am upon a very un- 
pleasant theme. 

The gentleman objects to some of my reasonings. He says that the 
church has fixed no tariff of sins ! Does he wish me to tell the whole 
story ] Is not the principle clearly asserted in the penances already 
read 1 Why fix a penance of three days for violating the sabbath, and 
twenty days for breaking a human fast ] For insulting his parents he 
must do penance for three years ; for rebelling against his bishop he 
must do penance all his life! He who kills a common man does 
penance three years ; but he who kills a priest must do penance 
twelve years ! 

The gentleman says there is no possibility of effectual pardon from 
a priest, unless contrition be sincere. A word from Ligori here : 

" In order to receive the sacrament of penance rightly, perfect contrition in 
the penitent is not required, but it is sufficient if he have attrition. 1 ' — Id. ib. ~N. 
440. The saint proves this in his exposition of the 4th chapter of the 14th ses- 
sion of the council of Trent: — Id. ib. [Synopsis, p. 105. 

Will the gentleman explain what he means by attrition ? I have, 
perhaps, said enough on this topic to prepare the way for my speech 
to-morrow morning on the "sea serpent!" But while on the whole 
premises of the rule of faith, and the mutability, fallibility, and tariffs 
of the Romanist sect, I beg to read, in the words of the most illustrious 
of the champions of Protestantism — The great Chillingworth: 

" Know then, sir, that when I say the religion of Protestants is in prudence to 
be preferred before yours; as on the one side I do not understand by your 
religion the doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius, or any other private man 
amongst you, nor the doctrine ot the Sorbonne or of the Jesuits, or of the Domi- 
nicans, or of any other particular company among you; but that wherein you 
all agree, or profess to agree, the doctrine of the council of Trent: So accor- 
dingly on the other side, by the religion of Protestants, I do not understand the 
doctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or Melancthon, not the confession of Agusta or 
Geneva, nor the catechism of Heidelberg, nor the articles of the church of 
England, no, nor the harmony of Protestant confessions; but that wherein they 
ail agree, and which they all subscribe with a greater harmony, as a perfect rule 
of their faith and actions, that is the Bible. 

" The Bible, I say the Bible only is the religion of Protestants, whatsoever 
else they believe besides it: And the plain, irrefragable, and indubitable conse- 
quences of it well may they hold as matter of opinion; but as matter of faith 
and religion, neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it 
themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and schis- 

s 



206 DEBATE ON THE 

matical presumption. I, for my part, after a long, and (as I verily believe and 
hope) impartial search of the true way to eternal happiness, do profess plainly 
that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot, but upon this rock only. 

" I see plainly, and with mine own eyes, that there are popes against popes, 
councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against 
themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another 
age, the church of one age against the church of another age: Traditive inter- 
pretations of scripture are pretended, but there are few or none to be found: 
JNTo tradition but only of scripture can derive itself from the fountain, but may 
be plainly proved to be brought in, in such an age after Christ, or that such an 
age it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficient certainty but of scripture 
only, for any considering man to build upon. This, therefore, and this only I 
have reason to believe: This I will profess, according to this I will Jive, and for 
this if there be occasion I will not only willingly, but even gladly, lose my life, 
though I should be sorry that christians should take it from me. 

" Propose me any thing out of this book, and require whether I believe or no, 
and seem it never so incomprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it with 
hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this, " God hath 
said so, therefore it is true." In other things, I will take no man's liberty of judg- 
ing from him; neither shall any man take mine from me. I will think no man 
the worse man, nor the worse christian, I will love no man the less for differing 
in opinion from me. And what measure I mete to others, I expect from them 
again. I am fully assured that God does not, and therefore men ought not to 
require any more of any man than this, to believe the scripture to be God's 
word, to endeavor to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it." — 
[Time expired.] 

Half past 3 o'clock, P. M. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

I am pursuing my opponent, to-day, though various assertions, and 
vain endeavors to establish against the Catholic church, the charge of 
immorality. I said, that the grace of penance was, in our estimation, 
so powerful, that there is no sin which it may not efface by the mercy 
of God. This, Mr. C. says, is a proof of our immorality ! If it be 
immoral to lift a heart-broken penitent from the depths of despair, and 
tell him there is hope in God, my friend is right. Catholics believe 
that there is no sin which God cannot forgive to sorrowing man. One 
drop of the infinitely precious blood which was shed for us on Calvary, 
is more than sufficient to cancel the iniquities of a thousand worlds : 
"If your sins be as scarlet, saith the Lord, they shall be made as 
white as snow." (Is. i. 18.) " Come to me, all you that labor and 
are burdened," says Christ, " and I will refresh you." (Matt. xi. 28.) 
" But," we are told, " the scripture speaks of an irrernissible sin, a sin 
against the Holy Ghost." That sin, my friends, is indeed a deadly 
one. That sin is, obstinately resisting the known truth, and final im- 
penitence, the almost inevitable consequence of suffering ourselves to 
be blinded by religious prejudice. This sin is more common than 
many (alas ! too many) are willing to believe. They are in that way 
of which the scripture says : " It seemeth to a man right ,- but the ends 
thereof lead to death" (Prov. xvi. 28.) To such Christ solemnly de- 
clares that " they shall call upon him, and he will not hear ,♦ and they 
shall die in their sin" Such persons as these, find it easier to accuse 
our church of a few riots in Rome, or elsewhere, which all the power 
of religion could not have prevented, (and the only wonder is that they 
did not occur more frequently,) than to study her divine evidences, be- 
lieve the mysterious truths she proposes, and practise the holy lessons 
she enjoins. But I must hasten to answer the multitude of heteroge- 
neous questions which my friend has proposed. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 207 

" What gives general councils their infallibility 1" The power and 
omniscience of God : the Holy Ghost abiding with the church, all 
days, until the consummation of the world. — " Can a thousand falli- 
bles make one infallible ?" Yes; and, according to your own show- 
ing, every one of twelve fallibles made an infallible ; for ycu allowed 
that the twelve apostles were, individually, and of course, collectively, 
infallible. And, if you need more homely illustrations, does it follow, 
that because one thread cannot keep a seventy-four to her moorings, 
that a cable consisting of a thousand strong threads cannot do so 1 
What one cannot do, many can, humanly speaking : how much more 
so when there is a divine promise : " Behold I am with you all days ; 
the gates of hell shall not prevail against you." (Mark xvi. 18.) I never 
said the Jansenists were Roman Catholics. I objected to Du Pin from 
the very commencement of this controversy, on the ground of his be- 
ing a Jansenist. The Jansenists have been condemned by the popes. 
Hence, they lose no opportunity of insulting them, exaggerating 
their faults and suppressing their virtues. My friend, then, followed 
a notoriously treacherous guide, when he trusted himself, and his 
cargo of notions about the popes, to such a helmsman as Du Pin. But, 
bad as the Jansenists are, they are too learned in church history and 
in the scriptures, to become members of any Protestant sect. Their 
magnificent work, The Perpetuity of the Catholic Faith, is, probably, 
the most learned production recorded in the annals of religious contro- 
versy. I should be happy to lend it to any gentleman of this assem- 
bly, and thereby convince him how venerable are the doctrines, which 
want of knowledge induces some persons to assail. The opinions of 
all the bishops in the world, are no article of faith. Articles of faith 
are defined, and they are no longer opinions. " Siquis dixerit ;" u If 
any say :" in this manner commence the canons of doctrine to define 
articles of faith ; and they end by the words, " Anathema sit ;" in imi- 
tation of St. Paul, who said : " Were I, or an angel from heaven, to 
preach to you any other gospel than what has been preached, let him 
be anathema." This formula always marks the definitions of Catho- 
lic faith, among the acts of general councils. But it will make even 
the smatterers in theology, the sciolists, I could have almost said, the 
school-boys of Europe, laugh, to see the gentleman gravely quote Fra 
Paolo, or Father Paul, the sycophant of the senate of Venice, the ex- 
communicated monk, or, to say all in two words, the " Calvinistic 
heretic" as he is justly called by the Protestant bishop, Burnet, as 
his authority for the proceedings of the bishops in the council of Trent. 
" He hid," says Bossuet, u the spirit of Luther under the frock of a 
monk." Henry IV. of France detected his hypocrisy, and denounced 
him to the senate of Venice ; and Pallavicini convicted him of three 
hundred and sixty errors in his pretended history of the council of 
Trent. I have got Paolo Sarpis' book in English, and will prove on 
him some, at least, of these errors, if he is quoted again, with his worthy 
compeers, Smith and Du Pin! Now the truth is, that there were upwards 
of two hundred and fifty bishops, or prelates, of different nations, 
nearly two hundred of the most learned theologians, and the ambassa- 
dors of many Catholic princes, at this council. It was held in Trent, a 
free city, and the utmost liberty was allowed in the discussion of the (lif- 
erent questions, previously to the definitions of faith. The council met 
to decide anew, what had been always, every where, and by all believed 



208 DEBATE ON THE 

in the Catholic church ; and the canon of scripture which it defined, was 
no other than .what had been settled in all the previous councils for 
upwards of a thousand years ; and this the whole Catholic world per- 
fectly understood. What, now, becomes of the gentleman's 48 by 251 
Why does he exaggerate in figures when he talks against Catholics, 
&n& figure in miniature when he speaks for them 1 Those beardless 
youths he speaks of, had, I presume frqm Italian faces generally, as 
much of that excrescence as other animals distinguished by a late 
senator. My friend was quite tender to-day, indeed excessively elo- 
quent, on the subject of marriage. Had he confined himself to its just 
praise, as the primeval institution of God, on the flowery banks of 
Eden, without outraging the express declarations of Christ, and the 
inspiration of his Holy Spirit, in the new law, I would have repeated 
what I have already said, in acknowledgment of the purity and sanc- 
tity of the nuptial union. But, I must borrow his own words, to say, 
w T ith still more truth, that " I blushed for our audience, and was 
shocked by the freedom of his attack upon the ordinance of God." 
The gentleman may talk until the end of the year, and I would meet 
him at every pause with the words of Christ, Matt. xix. 12 ; or, if 
these are not plain enough to the " sensual man who thinketh this 
virtue foolishness," with those of St. Paul, (1 Cor. vii.) "/ would 
that all men were even as myself" " i" say to the unmarried and the 
widows, it is good for them if they so continue, even as 7." (ver. 8.) " He 
that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he 
may please his wife ,• and he is divided. He that is without a wife, is 
solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. 
(verses 32, 33.) " Art thou loosed from a wife, seek not a wife . . . if 
a virgin marry, she hath not sinned : nevertheless, such shall have tribu- 
lation of the flesh. But I spare you." (ver. 28.) Can holy writ more 
unequivocally reprobate all the gentleman's romancing about wedlock, 
to the proscription of that pure devotedness to the holy offices of the 
ministry, of which Jesus Christ, St. John, and St. Paul, have left us 
the brightest examples in their own persons ] Mr. C. said : " Dared I 
to tell, before this assembly, but half that 1 have learned of that virgin 
priesthood :" and I, my friends, dared I tell, before this assembly, but 
half that I have learned, from old Protestant residenters of this city, 
of that married priesthood, in Elyria, on Lake Erie, and in towns in 
the interior of this state, without casting the net over heads nearer 
home, I would fill your souls with tenfold horror ! I would advise 
my friend to tread lightly on these ashes. Holy as marriage is, and 
holy as I confess it to be, St. Paul advises married people to forego, 
at certain times, the privileges of that state, to give themselves to prayer. 
(ver. 5.) The same is commanded in the prophet Joel, xi. 16. 
The high-priest was forbidden, in Leviticus, to neglect the foregoing 
injunctions, when he ministered unto the Lord ; as, also, to take a 
widow to wife, but only a virgin. Now, a widow, according to my 
friend's notion, would have a better title than a virgin to have-a high- 
priest for her husband, inasmuch as she had shown her reverence for 
the institution of marriage, by a previous union. And, now, let me 
ask again, why did my opponent labor so hard to give his Protestant 
hearers, the Paulicians for their ancestors, when it is well known, 
that these heretics condemned marriage ] This, the Catholic church 
has not done. But, when a vow is made to God, she says, with St. 



SOMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 209 

Paul, (1 Tim. v. 12.) " it is damnable, in either man or woman, to 
break it." Has my opponent read all these texts 1 Does he not re- 
member to have read in history, the honor in which the light of reason 
taught all the nations of the earth to hold virginity, and the privileges 
to which it was every where entitled 1 Has he read of scandalous 
damages recovered in courts, in England, by Reverends, who were 
mocked to scorn the following Sunday, when they went into the pul- 
pit to preach 1 Has he read of other reverends, who have had to pay 
damages for the slanderous reports, put in circulation by their fair 
companions in weal and woe 1 Is this the tribulation according to the 
flesh, of which St. Paul speaks ] " The decrees of councils attest that 
priests have not been such immaculate purities." Well ; and what 
do these records of the civil courts of England, and the domestic an- 
nals of broken hearts and blighted honor, attest? As well might the 
gentleman charge marriage with the shocking excesses, which it did 
not prevent in David and Solomon, as the law of celibacy with the 
specks and blemishes of the Catholic priesthood. 

In every religion there will be bad men, and by them every virtue 
will be outraged, but must we on this account blame virtue and ex- 
punge it; must we, like Moses descending from Sinai, break the 
tables of the law, because of a stifF-necked and a revolted people ; or, 
on the contrary, hold up that law before them in terror, remind them 
of their duty, and reclaim them, by exhibitions of divine justice and 
mercy, to virtue] " It is essential for a bishop to be a married man." 
And the gentleman's vote would be withheld from me, because I am 
a bachelor. Why, sir, St. Paul does not mean that a bishop should he 
a man of one wife, but that he should have had but one — otherwise, as 
he was himself unmarried, he would have acted against his own rules. 
Now I claim to be as clear-sighted, and as well read in the bible, as 
my friend, and I maintain it is essential a bishop should not be a mar- 
ried man; for he will not then be afraid to bring home from the bed of 
death the small-pox, the cholera, or the plague, to his wife and chil- 
dren ; he will not be prevented by the engrossing care of a family 
from visiting the " widow and the orphan;" he will have more money 
to spare for the wants of the poor. " To preside over a christian con- 
gregation," says Mr. Campbell, " a bishop should know experimen- 
tally the domestic affections and relations ; he should study human 
nature in the bosom of his family; there is a class of feelings which 
no gentleman of single life can comprehend, or in which he can sym- 
pathise, and these are essential to that intimacy (what intimacy !) with 
all classes, sexes and duties, which his relations to the church often im- 
pose upon him." What does all this mean'? I am sincerely shocked 
at this freedom. But if it mean any thing that I should answer, it 
would mean, that a bishop should be a bachelor to sympathise with a 
numerous class of christians, viz. old maids ; he should have a scold- 
ing wife to be able to sympathise with a scolded husband; a sickly 
w T ife, an ugly wife, a drinking wife, an arbitrary wife, an ignorant, 
stupid wife, to know experimentally what husbands suffer in all these 
domestic relations ; he should, and he should not, have children. Can 
there be any thing more superlatively ridiculous ! As well might you 
exact of the physician, that he should have had all the diseases you 
may call upon him to cure. A bishop can study his own heart, and 
as Cicero says, "Timeo hominem unius libri ;" if he will not learn 
s2 27 



210 DEBATE ON THE 

human nature there, he will not learn it any where. I have much more 
to say on this subject, which queen Elizabeth, Oxford college, (Eng- 
land,) regulations to the " fellows," and Dr. Miller, of Princeton, 
furnished me ; but whether I resume this unpleasant task or not, de- 
pends on my learned opponent. I have a large family to provide for, 
and I try at least to take care of it. Fifty little orphans, in want of 
an asylum, look to me for bread ! and as Christ and St. Paul have 
taught me to live, while I have ears to hear, and a heart to commiser- 
ate the hard lot of 'the fatherless and motherless, and claims to present 
in their name to a generous public, so, must I reason and judge, I should 
continue to live. These little beneficiaries gather around me when I 
visit them, and they call me by the endearing name of father ! and 
their appealing looks, their grateful smiles, their wants and artless- 
ness and joy excite in me emotions which a virtuous parent well 
might share, and an unfeeling one, who neglects or abuses his chil- 
dren, well might envy ! I invite my friend to visit these little inter- 
esting orphans, and see how an old bachelor gets along among them. 

Did I really defend white lies'? I think not. "One sin, in the 
sight of heaven is as great as another." This I deny. This doctrino 
saps the foundation of sound morals ; it leaves us no energy for virtu 
ous effort; it writes the mysterious " Mane, Tecel, Phares," on tho 
wall, for the first and least offence ; it has no warrant in scripture. God 
often speaks of nations filling up the measure of their guilt, and what 
could this mean, if one sin were as bad in divine estimation, and filled 
up as much space as a thousand ] It is true, He punishes all sins, 
but not alike ; therefore all are not equally heinous in his sight. Mr. C. 
says, " I wish the gentleman would enable me to deliver myself," &c. 
You may deliver yourself on any point you please, I have no objection. 

His next attempt at proof of immorality, was the allegation that we 
have destroyed the second commandment, rejecting the law against 
making graven images, that we may worship creatures, and images 
of creatures, and introduce idolatry ! the invocation of the spirits of 
dead men and women, &c. &c. My friends, this charge of leaving 
out the second commandment is very stale, and, no doubt, my Protes- 
tant hearers will be astonished to see and hear for themselves that it 
is utterly unfounded. Here is the Catholic catechism of this diocese : 
it thus reads. 2. "Which is the first commandment]" Ans. " I am 
the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and out 
of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. 
Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any' 
thing, that is in the heavens above or the earth beneath, or in the waters 
under the earth : thou shalt not adore them nor serve them." The Douay 
catechism is equally full, (holds it open,) so are all our bibles. I 
will display this little catechism here, or I am willing to pitch it 
among my audience for inspection. They will see that it contains 
the commandment in full, and that there is nothing in it, in violation 
cf the law of God, on this, or on any other subject. It is an admirable 
abridgment of faith and morals. If there have been any catechisms 
published without the commandments in fall, it is because they were 
published for the use of children, whose memories were not to be en- 
cumbered by too long answers, when the sense and substance of the 
precept could be sufficiently expressed in fewer words. As to the 
division of the commandments, my friend knows that the bible was 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 211 

not originally divided into chapters and verses as it is at present. 
But with this question we are not now concerned. 

It is not a crime to make an image, if we do not adore and worship 
it instead of the Creator, who is blessed for ever ; otherwise God would 
have transgressed his own prohibition, for he commanded Moses to 
make a graven image, namely, the image of a brazen serpent, and to 
set it up before a people exceedingly prone to idolatry, that they may 
look on it and be cured of the bites of the fiery serpents that stung them 
for their murmurings in the wilderness. The divine lawgiver also 
directed (Exodus xxv.) two images of Cherubim to be made, with 
their wings overshadowing the mercy seat of the ark of the cov- 
enant, towards which the people turned in prayer, and before which 
Joshua and the ancients of Israel fell flat upon their faces until the 
evening, at Hai, when they were defeated, for the sin of Achan, by the 
men of that city ; and Joshua said, " Alas, O Lord God," &c. vii. 7. 
What was the temple of Solomon, built by the special directions of 
that God who had forbidden the making of graven images to adore 
and serve them, but a temple of images ? Never has any house, per- 
haps, since or before, not excepting the celebrated picture galleries of 
the Louvre, abounded more in pictures and likenesses of things in 
heaven and things on earth, than did that venerable pile, and yet God 
was not offended, but promised that his ears should be attentive to the 
prayer of him that prayed in that place, as we read in the book of Kings. 
The objection is unphilosaphical, as well as unscriptural. What, I 
ask, are the letters G. O. D. but pictures, representing a certain idea? 
So written language, wiien first used, was a series of pictures, as every 
scholar knows ; and the bible abounds, like the temple, with these pic- 
torial signs. Again, where is the immorality of looking on the em- 
blem of our dying Savior 1 Is it not the gospel narrative of his sorrows 
and his love, condensed 1 The council of Trent, Sess. xxv. teaches, 
what every Catholic knows, " that while we venerate the memorials 
of Christ and his saints, we are not to believe that any divinity or 
power resides in them." I would, therefore, express in a few words, 
the motive of our respect for the crucifix, and our sense of its lifeless- 
ness and want of power, in the following apostrophe : " Thou canst 
not see, thou canst not hear, thou canst not help me, but thou remind- 
est me of my God." 

Were the objection of my worthy opponent rigorously urged, it 
would be impiety for the orphan girl to wear around her neck the like- 
ness of a fond, but alas ! prematurely deceased mother : or a soldier 
boy the miniature of the father of his country. The different trades and 
professions should be arraigned for the idolatrous practice of suspend- 
ing before their doors the signs of their various occupations. The 
United States' mint would be a factory of idols, and every money- 
holder, in bank notes, or the hard metal, an idolater ! Finally, if the 
Catholics substitute the words " honor and veneration " for " wor- 
ship," when speaking of the relative respect paid to the emblems of 
Christ and his saints, yet even the use of this word could be defend- 
ed from the Bible Chron. last ch. where the people, as it reads in the 
Protestant bible, luorshiped the Lord and the King, but surely not with 
the same kind of worship. The exterior act appeared the same, but 
in the heart, there was distinction of homage. If it be wrong and an 
outrage to the mediation of Christ to seek inferior intercessors with 
God, why did Paul ask the prayers of the christians to whom he ad- 



212 DEBATE ON THE 

dressed his epistles 1 Why did God command the importunate friends 
of Job to ask the just man's prayers for them 1 Why did he appoint 
a priest to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin 1 And why did the apos- 
tles teach us to say, " I believe in the communion of saints." // was 
strange, said king James, to the Scotch bishops, to allow those honorable 
places in the churches, to unicorns, lions, and devils, (griffins) which 
were refused to prophets and apostles ! " Let them not lead people by the 
nose," says Dr. Herbert Thorndike, Prebendary of Westminster, "to be- 
lieve they can prove their supposition that the pope is anti-christ, and the 
papists idolaters, when they can not" Just Weights and Measures, 
p. 11. " It is a shame to charge men with what they are not guilty 
of, in order to make the breach wider, already too wide." Dr. Mon- 
tague, Prot. bishop of Norwich, Inv. of Saints, p. 60. 

Another proof of immorality is the distinction between material and 
formal sins ! This is a just distinction. The civil law recognizes it. 
An injury done with malice aforethought, or formally, is very different, 
as to the guilt of the agent, from accidental and unintentional injury. 
A child, a maniac, a man in his sleep, or otherwise unconscious of 
what he does, and not the culpable cause of that want of conscious- 
ness, may inflict an injury, with impunity, for which liberty, and life 
should, under different circumstances, be very justly forfeited. My 
friend has brought up casuistry. The tendency of such punishments 
is salutary : and if a severer penalty is inflicted for the murder of a 
priest, &c, it is to preserve the inviolability of religion, which watches 
over the rights of parents, to the fear and love of their children, and 
of the law. to the obedience and respect of those for whose preserva- 
tion and wellbeing it was enacted. My learned friend traduced the 
clergy of the Catholic church and described the dangers of the con- 
fessional. As well might he denounce the medical profession. He 
read numerous extracts from publications of Smith, Slocum & Co's 
joint-stock concern, for the defamation of innocence. He may sit 
down, in the lowest places, with these worthy associates, if he will. I 
shall not molest them in their calculations of the "pieces of silver" 
" I will leave them alone in their glory." 

The gentleman allows that auricular confession was the law of the 
church in the fifth century. This is generous, and he is contradicted 
in the concession, by some Protestants, who, for want of better knowl- 
edge, give the institution a later date. It remounts, however, farther 
up the chain of holy usages, viz. to the time of Christ, who gave 
such power to men as that expressed in the text, St. John, xx. 22, 23. 
This power was not to be exercised without a knowledge of the dis- 
positions of the sinner, and this knowledge could only be obtained 
from his own confession. Leo I. did not, therefore, " open the 
floodgates of impiety by substituting private for public confession." 
The practice is of divine institution, and how horrid is it not, to speak 
thus of what all ages and nations of Christianity, the Greek and the 
Latin churches and the sects of the east, have ever held as the work 
of Christ, taught by himself and every where preached by his apos- 
tles ! Tertullian and Origen, who lived in the age next to the apos- 
tles, hold the following language : " If you withdraw from confession, 
think of hellfire, which confession extinguishes" "Look carefully about 
thee in choosing the person to whom you confess — confess to him your most 
secret sins" " It is necessary," says St. Basil, in the \th century, " to con- 
fess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of the divine mysteries is 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 213 

committed." " Let no one" says St. Augustine, " say to himself: i I do 
penance to God, in private.' Is it then in vain that Christ has said, what- 
soever you loose on earth, shall be loused in heaven ? Is it in vain that 
the keys have been given to the church ?" These texts abundantly 
prove that auricular confession was practised before the time of Leo 1. 
in the fifth century, and consequently that Christ and his apostles 
must share the odium in which my opponent presumes to involve the 
Catholic church. He says the practice of the public confession of sin, 
before the whole congregation, was the last entrenchment against the 
rapid declension of morals in the fifth century. And yet with glaring 
inconsistency, after contending for the practice so vehemently, in 
almost the same breath, he tells us : " There is no ear but God's, to 
which our errors or our faults ought to be confessed, for that the 
secrets of all hearts are his." Can there be contradiction more palpa- 
ble 1 And does not the Catholic practice save the sinner's honor, gently 
withdraw him from the downward path to ruin, admonish him of his 
ingratitude and restore him to religion and to society a better man, 
in all probability to sin no more 1 " Is there more condescension or 
mercy in a Roman priest," asks my opponent, " than in God ?" Why, 
the blasphemous question might have been put to Christ by the leper, 
when the Savior ordered him " to go show himself to the priest." Matth. 
viii. 4. " Is there more condescension, or mercy, in a Jewish priest than 
in God?" 

My friend quotes St. James, " confess your sins to one another :" 
but he takes care to omit the antecedents and the consequents of the text. 
" Is any man sick among you. Let him bring in the priests of the 
church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name 
of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and if he be 
in sins, they shall be forgiven him." James v. 14. Is not obedience 
to the directions of the Holy Ghost, the calling in of the priests and 
availing himself of their ministry, the indispensable condition prescri- 
bed by God himself, in the scripture, for the cure of the corporal mal- 
adies, but, much more, of the sins of the sick man] Could my 
friend have been more effectually refuted than he, evidently is by 
a text of his own selection 1 [Time expired.] 

Four o'clock. P, M. 
Mr. Campbell rises— 

From the beginning I have said, and I repeated it yesterday, that 
1 would not state any fact which I could not sustain. I do not care 
how often I am put to the test. I have here three catechisms, in 
which the second commandment is omitted, and to keep up the number 
ten, they have made two out of the 10th. Here are two catechisms, 
published by the authority of the Roman Catholic church. The title 
of one, from the highest authority since the council of Trent, is as 
follows : — 

" The most Rev. Dr. James Butler's catechism: revised, enlarged, approved, 
and recommended by four Roman Catholic Archbishops of Ireland, as a general 
catechism for the kingdom. Suffer little children to come to me, and forbid 
them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Mark x. 14. This is eternal life, 
that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou 
hast sent. John, xviii. 3. Twelfth edition: carefully corrected and improved, 
with amendments. Dublin: Printed by Richard Coyne, 4. Capel st. Bookseller 
and Printer to the R. C. College of St.* Patrick and Maynootb, and publisher to 
the Catholic Bishops of Ireland. 1826." [See page 36. 
I 2 8 



214 DEBATE ON THE 

Q. " Say the commandments of God. 

A. 1. I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no strange gods before me. 

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 

9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. 
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods, Exod. xx." 

Are these the ten commandments of God, as all Roman Catholic 
children are taught !! 

The single fact that the four archbishops of Ireland, and the Rom- 
an Catholic college of Maynooth should have impiously dared to 
strike one commandment from the ten, which God wrote on two tables 
with his own finger, and should have changed and divided the tenth 
into two, speaks volumes in proof of my allegata against the Romanist 
rule of faith. But we shall hear another witness — Title: 

" The General Catechism revised, corrected and enlarged by the Right Rev- 
erend James Doyle D. D. Bp. &c. and prescribed by him to be taught through- 
out the diocese of Kildaire and Lerghlin. [Motto the same as in the other, ster- 
eotyped and printed at Dublin by the same printer, A. D, 1827.] See. p. 25. 

Q. Say the ten commandments of God. 

A. I am the Lord thy God ; thou shalt not have any strange gods before me. 
Thou shalt not make to thyself neither an idol or any figure to adore it. 

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy <God in vain; for the Lord 
will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain. 

9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. 

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods." 

This merits the reprobation pronounced on the preceding. 

Again : here is an American catechism. — Yes, in this land of 
bibles has been published a catechism, in which the same liberty is 
taken. Its title is : 

" An abridgement of the Christian doctrine, with proofs of scripture 
on points controverted, by way of question and answer : composed in 
1649 by Rev. Henry Tuberville, D. D. of the English college of 
Douay : Now approved and recommended for his diocese, by the right 
Rev. Benedict bishop of Boston. This is the way, walk ye in it." 
Isa. xxx. 21. New York; published by John Doyle ; No. 12. Liber- 
ty street, stereotyped by a Chandler. 1833." See p. 54. 

" Q. What is the second commandment ? 

A. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." 

Is this the second commandment? It is not. That child is taught 
falsehood, which is taught thus to learn the decalogue. If the Roman 
bishops and archbishops in Ireland and America, in this our day can 
thus impose on all the youth in the Roman communion, and thus per- 
vert and annul one of God's commandments, to make way for the 
worshiping of images, what shall we say of the morality of her rule 
of faith in this and other matters 1 

It is a poor apology for this expurgation of the decalogue, that it is 
not so done in the Douay bible : for when these catechisms were in- 
troduced, and even yet in most Catholic countries, not one layman in a 
thousand ever read that bible : the catechism intended for universal 
consumption contained all his knowledge of God's law. What my- 
riads, then, through this fraud, must have lived and died in the be- 
lief that the second commandment was no part of God's law ! It 
is clearly proved, that the pastors of the church have struck out one 
of God's ten words ; which not only in the Old Testament, but in all 
revelation, are the most emphatically regarded as the synopsis of all 
religion and morality. They have also made a ninth commandment 
out of the tenth, and their ninth, in that independent position, be- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 215 

comes identical with the seventh commandment, and makes God use 
a tautology in the only instrument in the universe that he wrote with 
his own hand ! But why this annulling of the second commandment ? 
Because it is a positive prohibition of the practice of bowing down 
to images, and doing them homage ; a custom dearer to the Romish 
church than both the second and the seventh commandment ! It is, 
however, gross idolatry. So far at least as the ignorant and unedu- 
cated part of the community is concerned ; no spiritual, no highly 
cultivated mind needs such aids of worship — nay, they Would, to 
such persons, be hindrances rather than aids of devotion. But the 
uneducated and sensual mass, which are in that community, — the vast 
majority, literally adore the image, and delight in the picture more 
than in the Creator. And, therefore, the abrogation of the second 
commandment, by the priests, is the positive introduction of idolatry. 

The Hebrew bible says and all versions of it in effect say, " Thou 
shalt not make unto thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of 
any thing in heaven above, nor in the earth beneath. Thou shalt not 
bow down to them nor serve them." The gentleman made as hand- 
some and eloquent a defence of the practice of violating this solemn 
precept as could be well imagined. He referred us to the tabernacle 
and temple, of ancient time full of types — patterns of things in hea- 
ven, &c: but unfortunately for his logic, none were permitted to wor- 
ship these patterns of ideas. They were but to portray the things to 
be revealed in the gospel age — a picture-book, to sketch the outlines 
of that redemption, which the Messiah wrought, and of the worship 
of the kingdom of heaven. They never presumed to worship them, 
they looked through these outward symbols, or signs of ideas, to the 
spiritual substance as we look through unfigurative language to the 
sense. 

The " brazen serpent" introduced by my opponent, had the authori 
ty of God, for its being made, and was a splendid type of him that 
destroyed the serpent, that old serpent the devil, who had bitten the 
human race. When men bitten, looked at it, they were healed : but 
when they began to worship it, it was destroyed. I say, it had the 
authority of God. But where is the same authority for carrying 
about the bones of a dead saint, or the hair of the Virgin Mary, or 
the feet of Balaam's ass l Where is the first word, in favor of wor- 
shiping or making an image of the cross, or of the Savior, or of any 
saint ] or of venerating a grave, a relic, or a picture 1 

My opponent ingeniously asked, if the name of God were not a 
picture ] Profound reasoning ! The name of God a picture of the 
same class with the image of the cross and of the Virgin ! But a 
mother says to her infant, " my life !" and she may say to Lady Mary 
in the same style, "my life !" Ingenious ! I would ask this Roman 
Catholic lady when she looks upon her child, and exclaims " my life," 
if she feels the same religious affections, the same pious emotions, 
as when she looks up to the Virgin Mary and exclaims, "my life?" 
Is not the gentleman rather playing the sophist, or sporting in jest, 
than gravely reasoning the subject ] Certainly, he would not so teach 
his congregation in the absence of Protestants ! This is as felicitous 
and as rhetorical as his allusions to the device and images on medals, 
or on gold and silver coin. There is, indeed, idolatry here ! But 
there is no hypocrisy in the temple of mammon. Moreover, these 
worshipers adore not the image of money ; but the money itself. 



216 DEBATE ON THE 

Next came the cherubim. What an association of ideas ! What 
confusion in the mind that associates the cherubim in Solomon's tem- 
ple, with the image on a dollar ! Is the gentleman serious ? Did the 
people see the cherubim, in the holiest of all 1 Aaron, the priest, only 
stood before those cherubim, as the type of our high priest, who offers 
his sacrifice in heaven : and Aaron stood there only once in a year. 
If he understood either the type or the anti-type, he could not adduce 
it either for the worship of an image or the offering of any sacrifice on 
earth : for, like Aaron in the holiest of all, Christ offers his sacrifice 
in heaven. Aaron presented the blood upon the propitiatory : but Christ 
entered once for all. As the bishop's high priest is not in heaven but 
at Rome ; all the sacrifice which he can offer on earth is not worth a 
farthing: for in the Christian and Jewish sense, no sacrifice on earth 
can avail any thing. Such were the types, and such, certainly, are the 
anti-types. Offerings for sin, now, are only made in heaven. The 
very allusion to Aaron, strikes a blow at the priesthood of the Roman 
Catholic church, as if God had not accepted in heaven, the sacrifice of 
his Son, and called for their assistance ! ! 

But it is hinted that I should more fully prove the immorality of the 
Roman Catholic rule of faith. I have no lack of documents on this 
subject. The saint Ligori, by the help of saint Pius VII. has richly 
furnished us with indubitable authority. "The attorney general of the 
devil lives at Rome," says my opponent, " and prevents the beatifica- 
tion of all saints." How great, then, must have been the virtues of 
St. Ligori, who, in spite of the devil, was canonized by pope Pius 
VII ] ! See how equivocation is taught in this rule of faith and mo- 
rality : — 

" To swear," says St. Ligori, " with equivocation, where there is a good rea- 
son, and equivocation itself is lawful, is not wrong-. And if a person swears 
without a good reason, it is not to be considered a perjury; since, in one sense 
of the word, and according to mental restriction, he swears what is true." Li- 
gor. Lib. iii. N. 151. [Synopsis, 159. 

Dissimulation is variously taught. 

" It is lawful," continues Ligori, "for a Catholic, when he 

is passing through a country belonging to heretics, and is in danger of losing his 
life or property, to pretend that he is not a Catholic, and to eat meat on fast 
days." Id. Lib. ii. N. 15. [Synopsis, p. 216. 

This new old rule of faith has made some new sins, which neither 
patriarchs nor Jews did ever commit; and here is one of that class 
which no American can ever commit: 

" Is it a mortal sin," asks the saint, to steal zsmall piece of a sacred relic? Ans. 
" There is no doubt, but that, in the district of Rome, it is a mortal sin. But out 
of this district, if any one steal a small piece of a relic, it is probable that it is 
no mortal sin, provided the relic be not thereby disgraced, nor, its value less- 
ened; unless it be some notable or rare relic, such for instance, as the Holy 
Cross, or the hair of the blessed Virgin Mary," &c. Id. ib. N. 532. TSynopsis, 
p. 167. 

There is a secret on the subject of infallibility, which the saint Li- 
gori has begun to divulge. Custom, it would seem, since general 
councils are gone out of fashion, is from this time forth to be the 
standard of orthodoxy and infallibility ; at least, in morals. Listen 
to the moral theology of the Romish church on this point : 

" Custom," says the saint, "is defined the unwritten law. In orderthat custom 
should obtain the force and obligation of law, three things are required. 1st. 
That it be introduced not by any particular person, but by a communit}^, or at 
least, by the majority of a community, which is capable of making laws, al- 
though,' in fact, said community cannot make the laws. 2ndly. It is required 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 217 

that the custom should be reasonable." Custom has a threefold state. In the 
beginning all those persons who introduce a custom contrary to law, sin. In 

Erocess of time, those who follow a custom that has already been introduced 
y their ancestors, do not commit a sin in following the custom, but they can be 
punished for it by the prince. In fine, those who follow a custom after it has 
become a rule, neither sin, nor can they be punished for it." Id. ib. Is . 107. 

" The time required according to the canons of the Romish 
church, for A custom to become A LAW. In order that custom should 
obtain the force and obligation of law, it is required, 

44 3dly," continues the saint, " that it should continue a long time with re- 
peated acts. In regard to the time that is sufficient to render a custom lawful, 
one opinion is, that it is to be left to the judgment of the prudent, according to 
the repetition of the acts, and the quality of the matter. The second opinion is, 
that ten years are required, and are sufficient; for this is the length of time re- 
quired for the introducing and legalizing of a custom by the canonical law, un- 
less it be in some place where the contrary is sanctioned." Id. ib. Lib. i. JST. 107. 
[Synopsis, p. 183. 

44 Merchandizing, and the selling of goods at auction on the Sundays, is, on 
account of its being the general custom, altogether lawful. Buying and selling 
goods on the Lord's day and on festival days are certainly forbidden by the can- 
onical law, but where the contrary custom prevails, it is excusable." Id. ib. N. 286* 

44 He who makes use of the knavery and cunning," says the saint, " which is 
usually practised in gambling, and which has the sanction of custom, is not 
bound to restore what he wins, since both parties know that such tricks are cus- 
tomary, and consequently they consent to them." Id. ib. N. 882. 

Gambling consecrated for priests and people by the law of custom ; 

44 We will now show, however, the canons to the contrary, notwithstanding, 
that all sorts of gambling are allowed. This we prove from Ligori's own con- 
cessions. He teaches as follows; — " The canons," says he •'* which forbid games 
of hazard do not appear to be received except inasmuch as the gambling 
is carried on with the danger of scandal. Be it known," continues he, " that the 
above mentioned canonical law is so much nullified by the contrary custom, that 
not only laymen, but even the clergy do not sin, if they play cards principally 
for the sake of recreation, and for a moderate sum of money.'" Id. ib. N. 883. 
[Synopsis, p. 235. 

A new way of sanctifying the sabbath : 

" Bull fights and plays allowed. " On the entrance of a prince or no- 
bleman into a city, it is lawful on a Sunday to prepare the drapery, arrange the 
theatre, &c, and to act a comedy, also to exhibit the bull-fights; the reason is, 
because such marks of joy are morally necessary for the public weal." Id. ib. 
N. 304. [Synopsis, p. 193. 

The Roman Catholic rule of manners makes it even lawful to sin : 

44 It is lawful," says Ligori, " to induce a person to commit a smaller sin, in or- 
der to avoid one that is greater." Id. N. 77. [Synopsis, p. 255. 

44 Let the confessor," says the saint, " enjoin upon those scrupulous, who are 
afraid of sin in every action, that they act freely, despise their scruples, and do 
contrary to what they dictate, where sin is not evident. [Synopsis, p. 173. 

This law licenses drunkenness : 

44 It is no sin to get drunk, by the advice of a physician, if one's health cannot 
otherwise be restored." Id. N. 76. [Synopsis, p. 254. 

Hence drunkards may be acceptable communicants ! 

44 It is lawful," says Ligori, 4 ' to administer the sacraments to drunkards, if 
they are in the probable danger of death, and had previously the intention of 
receiving them." Ligor. vi. N. 81. [Synopsis, p. 260. 

Ignorance is the mother of devotion, even yet : 

The sinner must be left in ignorance. — The doctrine is as follows: (I 
take it from the saint verbatim.) " If the penitent (says he,) is in inculpable 
ignorance, in regard to those things concerning which, it is possible to be invin- 
cibly ignorant, although this ignorance be of the 4 law of God,' and the confessor 
prudently thinks that to admonish the penitent would not correct him, then, and 
jn that case, the confessor must abstain from admonishing the penitent, and must 
leave him in his ignorance." Id. ib. 

Heretics are still to be punished, not only by virtue of the general 

T 28 



218 DEBATE ON THE 

council of Lateran, A. D. 1215, which says, "Let the secular powers 
be compelled, if necessary, to exterminate, to their utmost power, all 
heretics denoted by the church :" but according to the moral theology, 
as reported by the saint. 

Heretics to be PUNISHED.— " A bishop is bound," says Benedict XIV. " even 
in places where the tribunal of the holy inquisition is in force, sedulously and care- 
fully to purge the diocese that is committed to his care, from heretics; and, if he 
find any of them, he ought to punish them according to the canons; he should 
however, be cautious, not to hinder the inquisitors of the faith from doing their 
duty." Ligor. Ep. Doc. Mor. p. 378. [Synopsis, p. 294. 

From the influence of all these laws, why should it be thought 
strange that the clergy are exceedingly corrupt 1 Listen to the saint : 

How many relapsing sinners are involved in eternal ruin by following the 
directions of bad confessors! "The saint has told us, that, AMONG THE 
PRIESTS, WHO LIVE IN THE WORLD, IT TS RARE, AND VERY 
RARE, TO FIND ANY THAT ARE GOOD." [Synopsis, p. 180. 

Yet according to these assumptions, under the sanction of Christ, 
all are bound to hear them on peril of damnation : for, " he that hear- 
eth you, heareth me ; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me : and he 
that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." So, to despise these 
priests, is to despise God ! 

Once more, from Lio-ori, and I shall have given almost a specimen 
of the immorality and impiety of the Roman Catholic rule of faith, on 
general points of religion and morality. There is no one subject on 
which we could be more copious than this one : but from respect to our 
audience we shall give but the remotest hint. 

44 A bishop, however poor he may be, cannot appropriate to himself pecuniary 
fines without the license of the apostolical see. But he ought to apply them to 
pious uses, which the council of Trent has laid upon non-resident clergymen, or 
upon those clergymen who keep nieces" Ligor. Ep. Doc. Mor. p. 444. [Synop- 
sis, p. 294. 

Now, if a priest should keep a niece, it is a very expiable and tri- 
fling offence; but should he marry a wife, he must be excommunica- 
ted forever! Thus the Roman Catholic rule of faith treats the Bible, 
and annuls, at pleasure, every law and institution of heaven ! Have I 
not, then, my respected auditors, fully proved the fallibility and im- 
moral tendency of the doctrine and rule of faith, of the bishop's church 
—to say nothing of that system upon the clergy themselves, who ex- 
pound and inculcate it? 

One word, before I sit down, on the unanimous consent of the Greek 
and Latin fathers. I have said before, and I repeat it, if they agree 
on any two points, they are, in giving testimony to the scriptures, and 
that it is the duty of all to read them. So far they are all Protestant, 
and not Roman Catholic. — [Time expired.] 

Half past 4 o'clock, P. M. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

The extract from Chillingworth will be viewed by men of intelli- 
gence, as one of the strongest arguments advanced in this debate on 
the Catholic side of the question. And it may be as well to observe, 
that my friend has probably first seen it in the Catholic work, the 
Amicable Discussion, from which he has quoted. Chillingworth was 
distinguished as a controversialist. He had a public disputation, like 
the present, with some Jesuits, by whom he was not only defeated 
but converted to the Catholic faith. But yielding, like Gibbon, to the 
solicitation of friends, the importunities, the livings presented to him, 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION 219 

or to which he was presented, by Laud, archbishop of London, he re- 
canted, and finally, as it is on good grounds asserted, he died a Jew. 
The only apology he could offer for his versatility was, that he found 
every one of these religions in the bible — it was the only resting place 
for the soles of his feet — that is to say, he trampled upon it, to subserve 
the purposes of base, worldly interest ! But I have now, thank God, 
something more tangible to offer in the way of proof that nothing 
can be conceived more inexcusably unfair, than the arguments em- 
ployed against the Catholic religion. I now pledge myself to shew 
to every man of honor in this city, that the last allegation read by 
the gentleman, purporting to be from the works of Liguori, is not to 
be found in the works of that writer. It is all a base fabrication, I 
will not say of Mr. C. ; but of somebody. I will meet this charge 
with a complete and an overwhelming refutation. We have now 
come to an important crisis in this debate. My worthy opponent re- 
duced to the desperation of defeat, like a drowning man, is induced 
to grasp at anything and to resort to abuse. But this will not sustain 
him. He cannot now quote from Du Pin, or send his readers back to 
the dark ages, and draw a grossly exaggerated picture of the personal 
frailties of a few popes and then ask if there can be a drop of apostolic 
grace in the whole world. I have three editions of the complete 
works of Liguori, in my library, or in this city, to refer to ; and in 
none of them can this vile doctrine be found. Mark, then, the pro- 
position, my friends. It is this. That priests are allowed to keep 
mistresses, upon payment of a fine, but that, if they marry, they are 
excommunicated ! I now call upon Charles Hammond, Esq. Judge 
Hall, General Harrison, Judge Este, Judge Wright, or any other five 
equally learned and honorable citizens of Cincinnati — for I only men- 
tioned the first that came to my mind — to decide this issue of fact, 
I pronounce the whole charge a base, unfounded assertion, and I again 
thank Heaven, that I am in a city, where justice will be 'done to 
the truth, and where falsehood will be triumphantly defeated. 

The volume from which the gentleman has been all day reading, is 
one of those books of abomination and falsehood ; put forth, in the 
city of New York, by Smith, Slocum and Co. and it is a fair specimen 
of their fashion of circulating truth. Does it not furnish strong pre- 
sumption to the reflecting mind, that there must be something divine 
in the religion which such men and women combine to abuse ? It 
was the monster Nero, notorious for parricide and lust, who first drew 
the sword against the christian religion. Forget not then, I pray you, 
my friends, the proposition that is before us. I am determined not to 
slumber or sleep on this matter, but to probe it thoroughly and ex- 
pose its rottenness to the world. Mr. Campbell's allegation against 
the Catholic church, is that Liguori, a standard moralist in that 
church, teaches, that priests may keep concubines by paying a fine, but 
that if they marry, they must be excommunicated. Whereas I distinctly 
deny that Liguori has ever taught any thing so abominable, and that 
all who say so, are guilty of a most flagrant violation of the command- 
ment of our God, which says " Thou shalt not bear false witness 

AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR." Exod. XX. 16. 

The charge of suppressing the 2nd commandment, while proof to the 
contrary, from the Catholic catechisms every where in use in the U. S. 
and from every Catholic bible in the world, was staring him in the face, 
may be placed along side of the foregoing ! Add to these, the hardi- 



220 DE13ATE OIV THE 

hood with which the plainest words of the Redeemer, the emphatic 
declaration of St. Paul, and the highest eulogy of the Apocalypse, 
on the superior sanctity of the unmarried state, have been violently 
tortured by my opponent, and a fair estimate may be made of the re- 
spect he entertains for the bible. Even his jests are but little help to 
his argument, for error was never genuinely witty. And when he af- 
fects to laugh at St. Paul for his having been a bachelor, I shall con- 
tent myself with replying, yes ! St. Paul was a bachelor : but would 
he not have looked wellj with seven little squealing children trotting 
after him, visiting the churches of Asia ! The remark of St. Paul, 
" have I not a right to lead about a sister ?" has reference to the prac- 
tice then early introduced, of entrusting in some cases, the instruction 
of females, to persons of their own sex, and to the greater facilities af- 
forded in this respect, to the apostles and preachers of Christianity, to 
convey the knowledge of true religion to promiscuous society, wheth- 
er Jewish or Pagan. I consider marriage a holy, nay, a divine insti- 
tution. I respect the sanctity of the union, and pay a willing tribute 
of praise to the eminent virtue of persons engaged in that state; but 
I must reason and judge with Christ and St. Paul, that if, " he who 
marries does well, he who does not does better." A priest assumes 
the obligation of celibacy, at mature age, and voluntarily. God's 
grace is sufficient for him, as it was for St. Paul, and his virtuous 
struggles against the evil spirit, that dared to tempt even the Savior, 
in the desert, and Paul, who had been rapt up even to the third hea- 
ven, can make virtue perfect in infirmity, without the priest's being as 
foolish as the thief, who cut off his hands, to keep himself from steal- 
ing. I hope however that my opponent, or his auxiliary, Smith, will 
not be tempted to cut off his hands, for stealing from Liguori, what 
is better to any man than trashy gold, his good name. One word 
more. If marriage were as pleasing in the sight of God, as celibacy, 
why did God and St. Paul direct abstinence from marriage privileges 
as a preparation for seasons of greater devotion ] According to my 
friend, should they not have commanded the contrary ] 

I pass, in the next place, to relics. The chair in which the signers 
of the declaration of Independence sat, the pen with which they wrote 
the glorious document, a bit of the wood of the tree overshadowing 
the grave of the illustrious Washington, are all treated with respect, 
and sought for with avidity : shall religious memorials alone be trea- 
ted contemptuously] What says the scripture, Acts. xix. 11. And 
God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles, so that 
even then were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs, and aprons, 
and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of 
them, " The woman, troubled twelve years, with an issue of blood, 
said within herself, " if I shall touch only his garment, I shall be 
healed," and she was healed; and Jesus turning and seeing her said: Be 
of good heart daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole," Even without faith 
or consciousness, there is a miraculous cure recorded in IV Kings xiii. 
21. " And Eliseus died and they buried him. And the Rovers from 
Moab came into the land, the same year. And some that were burying a 
man, saw the Rovers and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus, And 
when he had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood 
upon his feet," I have no doubt that these texts have never been read, 
or at least reflected on* by learned Protestants, like my friend, who 
ridicule Catholics in the pious simplicity of their souls, for venerating 



E03IAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 221 

dead men's bones. If the corpse of a prophet who had never seen Je- 
sus Christ, could impart such a miraculous virtue, as to resuscitate 
the dead, why is it considered absurd to invoke the prayers of the 
living and beatified spirit that knew and loved, and watched over the 
Savior on earth, and that now reigns gloriously with him in heaven? 
If Eliseus was good, was not Mary good 1 If the prophet of the Sa- 
vior had so much power, had the mother of the Savior none ] Hav- 
ing now disposed of celibacy and relics, I resume the subject of con 
fession. 

I shall now proceed to vindicate the scriptural origin, the moral 
tendency and the immense benefits conferred on society by the theory 
and practice of the sacrament of penance, as held in the Catholic 
church, from the weighty charges preferred against it by my oppo- 
nent. On this subject the council of Trent, ch. vi. teaches: " the penance 
of a christian after his fall (from, the grace of baptism) is very different 
from that of baptism, and consists, not only in refraining from sins, 
and a detestation of them, namely, a contrite and humble heart, but 
also in a sacramental confession of them, at least in desire and at a 
proper time, and the priestly absolution; and, likewise, in satisfac- 
tion, by fasting, alms, prayers, and other pious exercises of a spiritual 
life ; not, indeed, for the eternal punishment, which, together with the 
crime, is remitted in the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament, 
but for the temporal punishment, which the scripture teaches is not 
always wholly remitted as in baptism." Such is, and ever has been, 
the doctrine of the Catholic church, which thus ascribes the whole 
glory of man's justification to God, through Jesus Christ, cur only 
Savior. She teaches that God alone can forgive sin, and that without 
sincere sorrow, which induces us to detest sin more than all other 
evils together, the words of absolution would be a mockery ; and this 
sorrow may be called contrition, or attrition, the name matters little; 
it must be true, interior, preter-natural, universal, sovereign; that is to 
say, it must come from the heart, and from a motive suggested by 
faith ; it must extend to all sins without exception, and be accompa- 
nied by a sincere resolution to suffer every evil, even death itself, rather 
than offend God any more. This is the only idea of penance, as a 
sacrament, inculcated by the Catholic church, and from this, it ap- 
pears, how horrid is the guilt of our calumniators, who, when they 
find us otherwise invulnerable, assail us with the poisonous shafts of 
slander and misrepresentation, pretending, while they know full well 
how sincerely we reprobate the doctrine they impute to us, that the 
pope grants licence to commit sin, and that priests forgive it for money ! 

The power of the priests to absolve the contrite sinner, is based on 
the texts, John xx. Matthew xvi. where Christ gives the keys of hea- 
ven to Peter, and Ch. xviii. 13, whence declares to all the apostles, after 
breathing on them, and giving them the Holy Ghost, " Verily I say unto 
you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and 
whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven" By these 
words we consider the priest vested with a judicial power by Jesus 
Christ, to bind or to loose from sin ; and as this power cannot be ex- 
ercised without a knowledge of the sinner's dispositions, especially as 
to his sorrow for past sins, and his sincere resolution to refrain from 
them in future, which knowledge none but the sinner himself can 
give, we conclude on the necessity of sacramental confession to the 
the priest, who holds the place cf Christ in the spiritual tribunal, 

T - 



222 DEBATE ON THE 

There is no immorality in this belief; on the contrary, the most in- 
calculable benefits have accrued from it to religion and to society. If 
my friend say that it is impious to ascribe to man a power which be- 
longs to God alone, I answer, that if God choose to give such power 
to man, it would be impious in man to deny such power to God, and 
a grievous sin of ^disobedience, to refuse to use it. If he persist in 
saying, that man cannot be empowered by God to forgive sin in the 
sacrament of penance, I will ask him, why then is man empowered 
to forgive sin in the sacrament of baptism 1 I ask, why does he 
quarrel with Catholics for employing the words — "I absolve thee 
from thy sins," when Episcopalians do the same] Here is the church 
of England book of common prayer; and in it, I read as follows : 
" When the minister visits any sick person, the latter should be moved 
to make a special confession of his sins, if he feels his conscience troubled 
with any weighty matter ; after which confession, the priest shall absolve 
him, if he humbly and heartily desire it, after this sort .• " Our Lord Jesus 
Christ, who hath left power to his church, to absolve all sinners who truly 
repent and believe in him, of his great mercy, forgive thee thine offences, 
and by his authority committed tome, I absolve thee from all thy sins, 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," Amen, 
Soon after king James I. presented to the world, in his own person, 
the anomaly of head and member of the English church, and lord spi- 
ritual and temporal of the realm, he asked his prelates at Hampton 
court, what authority this church claimed in the article of absolution 
from sin? (Mark — the new Peter did not know his powers !) Arch- 
bishop Whitgift began to bamboozle him with an account of the gene- 
ral confession and absolution in the communion service ; with which 
the king being dissatisfied, Bancroft bishop of London, fell on his knees 
and said, " It becomes us to deal plainly with your majesty ; there is, 
also, in the book, a more particular and personal absolution in the 
visiting of the sick. Not only the confessions of Augsburgh, Bohemia, 
and Saxony, retain and allow it, but also Mr. Calvin doth approve 
both such a general and such a private confession and absolution," "I 
exceedingly well approve it, replied his majesty, it being an apostolical 
and godly ordinance." Bancroft was right in quoting the Augsburgh 
confession, for the Lutherans, the real Simon Pure of the reformation, 
in the confession of faith, and apology for that confession, expressly 
teach, " that absolution is no less a sacrament than baptism and the horoVs 
supper i that particular absolution is to be retained in corfession, that to 
reject it is the error of the Nov ati an heretics; and that by the power of the 
keys, sins are remitted, not only in the sight of the church, but in the sight 
of God" Luther himself, in his catechism, required, that the penitent in 
confession should expressly declare that he believes " the forgiveness of the 
priest to be the forgiveness of God" 

On this topic, before taking up the voluminous evidence before me 
for the doctrine of the Episcopalians, on this side the great water, I 
must produce evidence, not to be contradicted by the champion of all 
Protestantism. It is that of the redoubted Chillingworth. Treating 
of the text, John xx. 22, 3, he asks : " Can any man be so unreason- 
able as to imagine, that when our Savior, in so solemn a manner, having 
first breathed upon his disciples, thereby conveying and insinuating the 
Holy Ghost into their hearts, renewed unto them, or rather confirmed that 
glorious commission^ whereby he delegated to them an authority of bind- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 223 

ing and loosing sins upon earth, can any one think, I say, so unvjorthily 
of our Savior, as to esteem these words of his for no better than compli- 
ment? Therefore, in obedience to his gracious vjill, and as I am war- 
ranted and enjoined by my holy mother, the church of England, {you see 
Protestants use the style ' holy mother church'' as well as Catholics) I be- 
seech you that by your practice and use, you will not suffer that commis- 
sion which Christ hath given to h is ministers, to be a vain form of words, 
without any sense under them. When you find yourselves charged and 
oppressed, have recourse to -your spiritual physician, and freely disclose 
the nature and malignity of your disease. And come not to him only 
with such a mind as you would go to a learned man, as one that can 
speak comfortable thifigs to you ; but as to one that hath authority, dele- 
gated to him from God himself, to absolve and acquit you of your sins. 
If you shall do this, assure your souls, that the understanding of men, is 
not able to conceive the transport, and excess of joy and comfort, which 
shall accrue to that mail's heart, who is persuaded he hath been made par- 
taker of this blessing" 

An accredited writer in the New York Churchman, of the 7th Jan. 
$ne of the ablest periodicals in the United States, quotes the most 
convincing texts from Origen, Cyprian, Basil and Gregory, under the 
head of antiquity, 

Origen (flor. A. D. 220) in Horn. 10 in Numb. 

"Laicus si peccet, ipse suum non potest auferre peccatum, sed indiget sa- 
cerdote, ut possit remissionem peccatorum accipere." The same father, in his 
seventh homily on Luke, " Si enim hoc fecerimus et revelaverimus peccata 
nostra, non solum Deo; sed et his, qui possunt mederi vulneribus nostris atque 
peccatis; delebuntur peccata nostra ab eo, qui ait, ecce delebo, ut nubem, iniqui- 
tates tuas et sicut caliginem peccata tua." (Lat. ver. ex. Taylor.) 

St. Cyprian (nor. A. D. 240) in lib. de lapsis. 

"Confiteantur singuli, quasso vos, fratres, delictum suum; dum adhuc, qui deli- 
quit, in saeculo est, dum admitti ejus confessio potest, dum satisfactio, et remis- 
sio facta per sacerdotes apud Dominum grata est." 

St. Basil (flor. A. D. 360) in Regul. explic. et Reg. Brev.; 228. 

AfT TODV TiTX'y/HSVMV 'iXXCTTOV [J.^Q-V jXSV T>jj 'vJ/UXVJi; HlVifft* K,7T0Xf>V<£0V $VhX<TCT£lV «\A. 
Ir.TTOyvfJLVCVV TK KqVTTTX T Y[ g XXgOtXg TOig 7T I (TT i VOfAB V0 t g S 7T I [As X.£ J <T0 XI T&V V. CT3 £ V OVVTMV. 

'AvxyxxTcv i^oftohoyeTa-Sxt tx M/xxpTv,/xxT x to»j 7rs7rKTTevop£votg rqv cixovsfitxv t&v 
fi\jTTy.pfxv tc'o Qeov. o 

St. Gregory M. (flor. A. D. 590) in horn. 26 in Octav. Pascho. 

"Causae pensandas sunt, et cumligandi atque solvendi potestas exercenda, vi- 
dendum est, quse culpa ante, quee sit poenitentia sequuta, post culparn; ut quos 
omnipotens Deus per compunctionis gratiam vivificat, illos pastoris sententia absol- 
vat : tunc enim vera est absolutio praesidentis cum eterni arbitrium sequiturjudicis." 

••When St. James exhorts all christians ' to confess their sins to one another,' 
certainly it is more agreeable to all spiritual ends, that this be done rather to 
the curate of souls, than to the ordinary brethren. The church of England is 
no way engaged against it, but admires it and practises it. The Calvinist church- 
es did not practise it much, because they knew not well how to divest it from 
its evil appendages, which are put to it by the customs of the world, and to 
which it is too much exposed by the interests, weaknesses, and partialities of 
men. But they commending it, shew they would use it willingly, if they could 
order it unto edification. " Interim quin sistant se pastori oves, quoties sacram 
coenam participare volunt, adeo non reclamo, ut maxime velim hoc ubique obser- 
vari." Calvin. Institut. liber, iii. c. 4. Sec. 12, 13. And for the Lutheran 
churches, that it is their practice, we may see in Chemintios, 2. part. Gan. 
Cone. Trid. Cap. 5. de Poenit. who is noted to this purpose by Bellarmine; only 
they all consent (how very consistent^) that it is not necessary, nor of divine 
institution." Jeremy Taj'lor of auricular confession. 

" For they who are spotted with sins, unless they be cured with the priestly 
authority, cannot be in the bosom qf the church" said Fabianus Martyr {cited 
by Taylor.^ 



224 DEBATE ON THE 

Translation of the above extracts from the Latin fathers. 

(1) If a layman sin, he cannot himself take away his sin, but has need of a priest, that he 
may obtain the remission of his sins. 

(2) For if we do this, and reveal ourselves not only to God, but to those who can heal 
our wounds and sins, our sins will be blotted out by him, who says : " Behold, I will take 
away your iniquities as a cloud, and your sins as darkness." 

(3) I beseech you, brethren, let each one confess his sins, while he who has sinned is yet 
in life, while his confession may be admitted, while the satisfaction and remission made by 
the priests is ratified with God. 

(4) It behoveth each subject to conceal no passion of his soul, but to reveal the hidden 
things of his heart to those entrusted with the care of the infirm. 

(5) The causes are to be weighed, and when the power of loosing and binding is to be 
exercised, we must see what cause preceded, and what penance has followed the fault, that 
the sentence of the pastor may absolve those whom the Omnipotent God, by the grace of 
compunction, enlivens: for then the absolution of the minister is correct, when he follows 
the decree of the eternal Judge. 

[For English divines, see close of last speech of Saturday, January 21.] 



THURSDAY, January 19th, Half-past 9 A. M. 

The 3th Proposition being read — 

*• She is the Babylon of John, the Man of Sin of Paul, and the Empire of the 
Youngest Horn of'Daniel's Sea Monster," 
Mr. Campbell rose and said : 

I could have wished, my fellow citizens, that this proposition had 
been nearer the close of this discussion. But as my nine propositions 
were first arranged as themes for lectures, rather than as propositions 
for debate; I could not materially alter either the verbiage or order, af- 
ter I had been invited to discuss them with my present opponent* 
Without further ceremony, I proceed to sustain the proposition. 

I am not insensible of the difficulties and objections we have to en- 
counter, when we presume to prove any thing from the figurative and 
symbolic language of prophecy. The difficulties are not, however, so 
great as at first view may appear. Symbols are exempt from some of 
the objections lying against literal descriptions — They need no translation. 
Sun, moon, and stars speak the same sublime language to every eye, 
and suggest the same devout and lofty emotions to every heart. A 
lion, a leopard, a bear, — an earthquake> a tempest, a swelling sea, are 
types of the same ideas, and call forth the same thrilling sensations in 
every spectator. Hence the wisdom in selecting appropriate symbols 
of the persons and scenes which fill up the great drama of human exis- 
tence, and diversify the prophetic chart, which the revealing Spirit 
holds up to the eye of the diligent and faithful student of the word and 
providence of God. 

But, as on a globe of 13 inches diameter, the earth with all its oceans 
and continents, its mountains and valleys, its lakes and islands, cities 
and districts, can be displayed in the proper positions and relative sizes 
of all its parts, and in an instant presented to the eye; so in a symbol, 
can be grouped together all the grand characteristics of a people or an 
event, and so accurately and comprehensively, that by a single glance 
of the eye more can be learned than from the perusal of a volume. 

This is, indeed, an advantage which figurative representation has 
over that which is purely literal and descriptive. By a glance of the 
eye on a globe, or a map, one can have a better idea of a country, or 
of the earth, than from the reading of volumes; so by considering a 
symbolic representation, we may acquire a more vivid and compre- 
hensive view of a subject than by the perusal of many pages. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 225 

There is but one eye in the universe that pierces all nature through ; 
to which the past, the present, and the future are equally plain. God 
alone knows the future. He has revealed it. In the seventh chapter 
of Daniel, now lying before me, we have one great meridian line, which 
runs from the Euphrates to the ends of the earth, and from the reign 
of Nebuchadnezzar, the proudest of Assyrian kings, to the ultimate 
triumph of the Gospel throughout the whole earth. 

We shall rapidly sketch the contents of this chapter, which embraces 
more of human destiny than can be gleaned from all human records. 
Daniel is in vision translated to the Mediterranean — the great sea- 
symbol of people in commotion ; as the earth is of the people at rest. 
There can be no more appropriate or striking picture of human society 
than the sea. Sometimes it is tranquil and smooth as oil, like a splen- 
did mirror reflecting the azure vault of heaven : anon it is ruffled by 
a gentle breeze that ripples softly on its bosom: again, it swells and 
foams and rages in huge mountain waves that strike with a sublime 
awe the eye of every beholder. So the people who, to day are all in 
peace and amity in the smooth current of their daily avocations, by some 
evil wind or passion are swollen into some mob, or tumult, or tre- 
mendous conflict, which for a moment rends the social compact, 
destroys all confidence, and jeopardizes the best interests of all. Thus 
in the symbol now before us ; — the winds, the passions of men, are in 
some great tumult. They strive upon the great sea. Four terrific and 
appalling savage monsters in quick succession rise. 

They were all sea monsters, for God's symbol of a tyrannical gov- 
ernment has always been a savage wild beast. The first was like a 
lion with eagle's wings — the fortunes of this eagle-winged lion com- 
ing out of a tempestuous sea, fitly symbolized Assyria in its rise, glo- 
ry, and decline, after the dynasties of more than fourteen hundred years. 

The savage beast, like to a bear, raising itself on one side, standing 
with three ribs in its mouth, viz. Babylon, Lydia and Egypt, represents, 
because of its rapacity and cruelty, the empire of the Medes and Per- 
sians. This rose from the sea which overwhelmed the Assyrian pow- 
er : and it continued for two hundred years. 

A leopard-like monster, with four heads and four wings upon its 
back, indicates the rapid conquests of Alexander. His short-lived 
empire often years, reared upon the ruins of the Medo-Persian, and 
spotted with various nations, finally partitioned among his own four 
principal generals, is most appositely represented by the symbol of the 
sixth verse. 

But a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly, 
having great iron leeth : which devoured and brake in pieces, and 
stamped the residue with the feet of it, diverse from all the beasts 
that were before it, having ten horns, portrays the Roman empire in 
those fortunes connected with the principal figure in the group. In- 
terpreters are as much agreed about the import of these symbols as are 
lexicographers in defining the ordinary words of human speech. For, 
although they may differ about the time when, or the place where, one 
of these symbols may rise, or fall, there is scarcely any controversy on 
the symbols themselves, or subjects to which they refer. 

But the principal figure in these four monsters remains yet 
to be described. "I considered," says the prophet, "and, behold, 
there came up among them (rather, " behind them" and unobserv- 
ed) another little horn, before which, three of the first horns 

29 



228 DEBATE ON THE 

were plucked up by the roots." Horns, as defined by the Spirit, mean 
kings or kingdoms. The Roman empire was first partitioned between 
ten kings or states, after the irruption of the northern barbarians. — 
Pepin, the king of France, gave to a pope of Rome one horn, viz. the 
exarchate of Ravenna. Charlemagne gave to Peter's successor the 
kingdom of the Lombards — the second horn ; and Lewis the Pious con- 
firmed to the Pope the State of Rome, a third horn of the original ten. 
Thus, before the little horn became very conspicuous, three horns made 
room for it, and it occupied their places. 

But the eleventh horn is particularly described in the words following, 
to wit : " In this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and it had a 
mouth speaking great things." Here we have a horn, a government, 
full of eyes, — sagacious, politic, cunning : and eloquent, persuasive, 
boastful, rhetorical, for such are the chief attributes of the horn full of 
eyes, having a mouth, &c. The identification of this horn is the grand 
point before us. We shall, therefore, hastily seek out its distinguish 
ing attributes. 

By reading the chapter with, now and then, the interposition of a 
word, we shall see that the peculiarities of the little horn are clearly 
and definitely marked. 

"I beheld," says Daniel, "I contemplated the horns till the thrones 
were cast down (rather set up : as in the Vulgate, positi sunt,) and the 
Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the 
hair of his head like the pure wool, his throne was like the fiery flame, 
and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth 
from before him, thousand thousands ministered to him, and ten thou- 
sand times ten thousand stood before him, the judgment was set and 
the books were opened. I beheld then, because of the voice of the 
great words which the horn spake, I beheld till the beast was slain 
and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame." Mark, the 
entire and complete destruction of the beast of the little horn is as- 
signed to his arrogance and blasphemy, — because of the words which 
he spake against God and his saints. The other beasts simply lost 
their dominion, but their lives were spared. " As concerning the oth- 
er beasts, they had their dominion taken away, but their lives were 
prolonged." So ends the general statement concerning the whole, and 
the broken, and the restored, empire of the fourth beast. 

But to proceed to the second part of the vision. " I saw," &c. 
" One like a Son of man — (bar-enosh) came with the clouds of hea- 
ven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before 
him, and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, 
that all people, nations, and languages should serve him ; his dominion 
is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his king- 
dom that which shall not be destroyed. I asked the meaning of all this, 
so he told me and made me understand the interpretation of the things." 

We have now an interpretation authorized and confirmed. "These great 
beasts which are four, are four kings which shall arise out of the earth. 
But the saints of the Most High shall take (receive) the kingdom, 
and possess the kingdom for ever — even for ever and ever." " Then 
I would know the truth (meaning) of the fourth beast (empire,) 
and of the ten horns ; and of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that 
spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows." 
The interpreting angel then explains this portion of the vision. " The 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 227 

fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom." (King and kingdom are 
sometimes used interchangeably.) There never were but four great 
universal empires on earth, and there never will be another, except that 
of the Messiah. — His universal empire will be the fifth. The fourth 
beast " shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down and break 
it in pieces." — So did the Roman empire. And the ten horns are ten 
kings (or kingdoms) which shall arise out of this empire or kingdom ; 
and another (the little horn) shall arise after them. And he shall 
be diverse (not merely political) from the first (ten) and he shall sub- 
due three kings ; not only shall three of the kings give place to 
him, — but he shall destroy the antagonist power of the three empires 
that preceded his. " He shall speak great words against the 
Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and 
think to change times and laws. — (These three never met in any beings 
save the popes of Rome.) And they shall be given into his hand un- 
til a time, and times, and the dividing of a time." 

A time is one annual revolution ; a times, two ; and half a time, 
half a year; in all, forty-two months ; or one thousand two hundred 
and three score days, — the product of forty-two thirties ; or forty-two 
Jewish months. Of all this, and of one day being given for a year, 
there is no controversy among Catholics or Protestants. The continu- 
ance of the empire of the little horn is therefore predestined to twelve 
hundred and sixty years. 

But the judgment shall sit. The long prayed for and expected judg- 
ment shall be given in favor of the saints. Then shall be taken away 
his dominion to consume and to destroy it unto the end or consumma- 
tion. "Then" with anticipated triumph be it spoken — "the kingdom 
and dominion and the greatness of the kingdom, under the whole 
heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, — 
(They were not all worn out by the Little Horn) whose kingdom is an 
everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him." 
Hitherto is the end of the matter. 

Now of all these items the sum is — 

1. It is a beast, or empire, or power, that grew out of the Roman beast. 

2. It rose after the empire was divided into ten kingdoms. 

3. It was a new and different power, sagacious and politic — with 
human eyes — an eloquent, persuasive, and denunciatory power. 

4. It supplanted and displaced three of the original states of the 
Roman empire or of the ten kingdoms into which it was at first divided. 

5. It assumed more than any other empire. It uttered great things 
and its look was more stout (daring) than its fellows. 

6. It made war not against sinners, like other empires — it made war 
against saints. 

7. It prevailed for a long time against them. It " wore out the saints." 

8. It presumed to change times and laws. How many fasts, and 
feasts, and saints, and new laws, and institutions has this power set up ! 

9. It had power to hold in subjection all saints, and to lord it over 
them for a long time. 

10. It was to be consumed, gradually wasted as the Protestant Re- 
formation has been wasting its power and substance for three centuries 
—and is yet finally, suddenly and completely to be destroyed. Can 
my learned opponent find all these characteristics and circumstances in 
any other power or empire in the history of all time ! I trust he will 



228 DEBATE ON THE 

give me an opportunity to expatiate on these points and to defend them 
more fully. 

Meantime, to excite attention, I positively affirm that these items 
never met in any King, Kingdom, State or Empire, save that of Papal 
Rome. There, and there only, can they all be found as large as life ; 
and as exact as answers the image in the mirror to the face. 

Bat I hasten to identify this prediction with the Babylon of John. 
And in doing this I can at present hut sketch the rudest outline. Let 
us open the 13th chapter. 

John stands in vision on the shore of the great sea, the Mediterrane- 
an. He saw a savage beast rising out of the sea. It had seven heads 
and ten horns, and on its heads the names of blasphemy. — It resembled 
the lion, the bear, and the leopard. It was composed of all that is 
savage. The dragon, the serpent of my opponent, Pagan Rome gave 
him his power and his throne, and great authority. — How much does 
this resemble the vision of Daniel ! This seven headed Empire with 
ten horns — It is on this beast the woman sat — subsequently pictured 
out as Babylon the Great. This is the Latin Empire which sustained 
the Latin church. This is the beast out of which the Little Horn grew. 

The wounded head or the imperial, which was the sixth head, was 
healed by the great Charles, and his new empire controlled by the ec- 
clesiastic beast, spoke blasphemies and daring things against God, his 
name, and all that dwell in heaven. This new religious and political 
Empire "made war against the saints and overcame them." "And it con- 
tinued fox forty-two months" "a time, and times and a dividing of time." 

His dominion extended over all the western Roman Empire. But 
next comes the Little Horn — the ecclesiastical beast.— In John's vision 
this beast resembles a lamb, but it speaks like a dragon ! Christian 
Rome spoke like Pagan Rome ! It obliged all the earth to worship the 
dragon — It was Catholic ! ! It made an image of the Pagan beast. It 
gave life to this image, and compelled all to die or worship the image 
of the Pagan beast. It was then a bloody persecuting beast. It was 
idolatrous as Pagan Rome. But instead of worshiping dead heroes 
it worships dead saints — instead of Goddesses it has Lordesses ; angels 
instead of demi-gods. — 

Indeed Papal Rome has borrowed much from Pagan Rome — Old 
Rome had her pontifex maximus, her purgatory, priests and priestesses, 
her victims and " hosts" She had her lustral water as modern Rome 
has her holy water. She had her vestal virgins as her descendant has 
her nuns. She had her Pantheon as modern Rome has her Vatican, 
and in the niches where stood the gods of the dragon now stand the 
saints of the Roman Draconic lamb. 

My present argument requires me to identify this beast with the 
Roman church or with the Little Horn. — And therefore in addition to 
the resembling attributes already traced I proceed to the most definite 
of its marks. u Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding 
compute the number of the beast : for it is the number of a man, and 
his number is six hundred and sixty six." — 

The ecclesiastic beast, or kingdom is thus definitely the letters of a 
name which together make 666, The name of a man is the name of 
this kingdom. Now we begin with a Roman saint — even with the 
great Ireneeus. We shall find in the name of the king and founder of 
the Latin empire the name of this prophetic personage — It is said by 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 229 

the saint that among the Greeks the king's name was written Lateinos 

the letters of which being numerals in that language exactly make the 

sum : for a 30 

« l 

t 300 

• 5 

* 10 
v 50 
o 70 
i 200 

666 

He made the name of the founder stand for the name of the empire. 
But Bellarmine, a learned Jesuit, objects to this — that in the language 
and at the time the Revelation was written the orthography of this name 
was Axrivc?, and not Aoltuvos. And this being so there is a plausible, nay a 
relevant objection aginst the interpretation of Irenaeus. We pause not 
to examine this matter ; because we find a much more consistent and 
convincing exposition in the true and proper name of the Institution 
which in Greek was always written in full. 

HA»Tivn^ja£i». The Latin Kingdom. H=8, A=30, «=1, t=300, *=10, v=50, 
,.=■8,0=2, *==1, ?=200, «=10, \=30, «=5, «=10, «=1 : The sum, 666. 

The conclusion from these premises is, that as there is no other king- 
dom on earth whose name is exactly 666^and as the beast, the symbol 
of this kingdom, has been proved to be the Latin empire, and He La- 
tine Basileia, being proved to contain 666, this definitely and clearly 
marks out the Roman Institution as that to which the 13th chapter of 
the apocalypse and the 7th chapter of Daniel refer. 

The only question of apparent difficulty that can be here asked, is : 
— Whether Rome Pagan or Rome Papal is intended : for that Rome 
is intended cannot be questioned. That it is Rome Papal is evident 
from the fact that what is called the second Beast, chap. 13, verse 12, is, 
chap. 18 and 20, called the false prophet — and this is the beast whose 
name is given as numericaly equivalent to 666. 

This moreover explains that love of Latin which to this day distin- 
guishes this party. They not only have long gloried in the name Ro- 
man or Latin Catholic or Church of Rome, but they still say mass in 
Latin, and perform their religious services in that dead language ; for 
although Paul " had rather speak five sentences in the vernacular, than 
ten thousand sentences in an unknown tongue" — that he might edify 
his hearers, — and although in the age of the " primitive Fathers" the 
whole church prayed and taught in the language of every country 
where they worshiped ; still for the sake of Latin, to this day and even 
in this country, Romanists perform their most devout services in that 
dead and foreign tongue as though God himself preferred that language 
to every other. Thus they are providentially bearing to all nations and 
languages the grand mark, and the number of the name which identifies 
them as the beast and Babylon of John. 

To return to the imagery of the Prophet John : — In the 17th chapter 
this ecclesiastic establishment is compared to a great harlot, with whom 
the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and as having intox- 
icated all the inhabitants of the earth with the wine of her whoredom. 
The woman is further identified by being described as sitting upon a 
scarlet beast* full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten 
horns; and she is adorned with purple and scarlet, with gold, and dia- 
monds, and pearls ; having a golden cup in her hand, full of the abomi- 
nation and pollution of her whoredoms. She had upop hot forehead her 
LT 



230 DEBATE ON THE 

name written : — " Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of 
Harlots, and of the abominations of the Earth." And to make 
the matter more certain, the Spirit testifies, verse 18 : "The woman 
which you saw is the great city (spiritually called Babylon, literally, 
Papal Rome) that rules over the kings of the earth." 

Having thus connected these symbols, and seen the co-adaptation to 
the same subject we shall here introduce the Apostle Paul with his 
plain and unfigurative description of the Man of Sin, 2d chap. 2d Thes- 
salonians, and examine the congruity of his description with the sym- 
bols of Daniel and John. He may be regarded as the literal interpre- 
ter of them both. 

" Let no man deceive you by any means : for that day shall not come, 
except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, 
the son of perdition ; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that 
is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the 
temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, 
that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things 1 And now ye 
know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For 
the mystery of iniquity doth already work ; only he who now letteth 
will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wick- 
ed be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his 
mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even 
him, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all powers, and 
signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteous- 
ness in them that perish ; because they received not the love of the 
truth, that they might be saved." Verses 3 — 10. 

The Apostle foretells an apostacy (a falling away) in the Church ; 
which apostacy would issue in the full revelation or manifestation of 
the Man of Sin, (or of idolatry, for this is the sin of Jews and Gen- 
tiles.) The Man of Sin is again designated as the Son of Perdition. 
He was the subject of past prophecy as Judas was; for on that account 
he too was called the Son of Perdition — foredoomed to ruin. The names 
of Man of Sin and Son of ruin, fitly represent this apostacy. The at- 
tributes and circumstances peculiar to this passage are the following. 

1. He was to come forward stealthily by degrees and unobserved, 
(like Daniel's Little Horn, to grow up behind the others) " The secret, 
or mystery of iniquity already inwardly works." 

2. He could not be revealed till " He who restrains or lets (the Pa- 
gan power) be taken out of the way." Political power as well as ec- 
clesiastic was necessary to his development. So the Little Horn 
did not appear conspicuous .till after the ten horns grew out of the 
fourth beast. The Man of Sin is, in historic truth, the youngest horn 
that sprung from the Pagan beast. 

3. He was to exalt himself above all that is called a God, or an 
object of worship. My learned opponent will agree with me that God 
here may mean, as sometimes it does in the Bible, a magistrate or king. 
And certainly not only in the arrogant titles which he assumes, but 
in the dispensations which he has granted, in respect to laws 
divine and human, no magistrate, king, or potentate, ever claim- 
ed so much on earth as the Man of Sin, as the Popes of Rome 
He is not only styled " Universal Father," " Holy Father," " His 
Holiness," "Sovereign Pontiff," "Supreme Head of the Church 
on Earth," ** Pater Familias," " Successor of Peter," " Prince of the 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 231 

Apostles," "Infallible One," "Vicar of Christ," "Lieutenant of 
Christ," " Prince of the World ;" but he is styled, still more blasphe- 
mously, " Lord of Lords," a god on earth, " Lord God the Pope." 

4. He places himself " in the temple of God." This ascertains the 
Man of Sin more specifically than any other attribute or circumstance in 
the passage. He is no Pagan idolater ; he is no infidel Jew ; he is no 
author of a new religion ; but he sits in the Church of Jesus Christ — 
God's building — God's temple — holding the fundamental truths of re- 
ligion, as did this community when the Man of Sin invaded the 
Church ; for, yet, the great facts of Christianity are acknowledged by 
the Church of Rome, though "made of no effect by her traditions." 

5. He exhibits or " shows himself to be a god." He claims to 
Teign not only for Christ as his vicar, but the homage due to a repre- 
sentative of God he haughtily appropriates to himself. Such is the 
prediction of the man of sin ; and who that is conversant with the 
history of the popes of Rome, from their coronation, standing on the 
altar in St. Peter's church, receiving the title of God's vicegerent, 
assuming the honors of the supreme head of the whole church ; pow- 
er over the angels of heaven, over the inhabitants of Hades, and over 
the laws and statutes of the bible, can think that Paul exaggerates the 
picture by saying that this son of perdition, and man of sin, was to 
pass himself off, was to "show himself as a God" 

6. He is called the lawless one ; verse 8, " the wicked one." So Da- 
niel's little horn is represented as " changing (or seeking to change) the 
times and the laws." Instances of such dispensations and indulgences 
could be multiplied, ad libitum, demonstrative that such have always 
been the professions and assumptions of the " Princes of the Apostles " 

7. But another incident in the history of the decline of the man of 
sin deserves our attention, and singularly identifies him with the em- 
pire of the little horn. " Whom the Lord shall consume (or slay) by 
the spirit of his mouth, and destroy by the brightness of his coming." 
And of the dominion of the little horn, says Daniel : " They shall 
consume and destroy it to the end." Paul seems to have quoted the 
very words of Daniel, and thus most unquestionably identified the 
man of sin and little horn as designating the same apostacy from 
Christ and his religion. 

8. In describing the coming of this man of sin, he is compared to 
the deceptions, assumptions, and approaches of Satan, who has often 
assumed a divine mission or the power of miracles. So the Roman 
church has ever pretended to the power of working miracles, and has 
gained and still retains much power by false signs and lying wonders. 

Of this apostacy, and of the rise and progress of this man of sin, 
as described by Paul, we may mark his growth and progress in full 
agreement with the records of authentic history in the following order 
and style : — He was an embryo in Paul's time. (The mystery of in- 
iquity doth already inwardly work). He was an infant in the time of 
Victor L, 195. He was a bold and daring lad in the time of Constan- 
tine the Great. A sturdy stripling in the days of Leo I., when au- 
ricular confession came in. He was nineteen years old in the days 
of Justinian's code ; and a young man full twenty-one, when Boni- 
face III. received from Phoeas the title of Universal Patriarch or 
Pope, A. D. 606. He was twenty-five when Pepin and Charlemagne 
gave him political power and glory, A. D. 760: and at full prime, or 
at thirty-five, when Gregory the Great took the crown from the empe- 



232 DEBATE ON THtf 

peror Henry and gave it to Rudolphus. He had reached his grand cli- 
macteric in the days of Wickliff, and Luther gave him a mortal thrust, 
which introduced into his system that chronic consumption under which 
he has ever since lingered. But it remains for John the apostle, and last 
prophet of the church, to declare his last agony and final overthrow. 

As we have no time more than to sketch the naked outline, we 
shall hasten to the consummation, as respects the Babylon of John, 
so exactly identified with the subject before us. In his apocalyptic 
developments, 18th chapter, he declares her final doom. My propo- 
sition carries in it the indication of a monster. She is the Man of 
Sin ! Babylon the Great — a city, a beast, a woman, a state, a persecu- 
ting power ,• scarlet, purple, drunken with the blood of the saints, with 
the blood of the martyrs of Jesus ! ! Mystery ! By mystery she rose, 
she reigns ; — her mystery of purgatory, transubstantiation, relics, mi- 
racles, signs, sacraments, and unfathomable doctrines, have given her 
power : for, says Paul, (2d Thess. ii.) describing the advances of this 
son of ruin, and lawless one, " His coming is according to the ope- 
ration of Satan, in all power and lying wonders." — Douay Testament. 

Babylon, the ancient capital of Chaldea, great as it was, was but 
the type. Her antitype is the spiritual city. This city sits upon the 
seven mountains of the "Holy Roman Empire," which the heirs of 
Pepin erected. For thus did they blasphemously designate the 
new empire erected out of the seven grand electorates of Germany ; 
the seven heads of that empire which sustained the assumptions of 
the papal see. 

But we have now to do with her overthrow. The means of her decay 
are, first, the spirit of the Lord's mouth. The reading, preaching, and 
circulating of the Bible. The second is the hatred of the ten horns ; "For 
the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the 
whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh 
and burn her with fire." Flesh is the symbol of riches. And riches 
she has had beyond comparison. It is said, that in two churches in 
Spain, some fifty years since, there were more gold and silver, in 
saints, apostles, and angels, than the richest sovereign in Europe was 
worth. Her real and personal estate has never yet been valued. But 
the political powers shall get tired of the cupidity and insatiable ap- 
petite of this monster, and shall plunder her resources and confiscate 
her estate, as in France and England, and thus shall her ruin com 
mence. But at the moment when judgment shall be given in favor 
of the saints of the Most High, — when the. hour of her destruction 
has come suddenly and in an instant, as when an angel hurls a mill- 
stone into the sea, shall Rome with all her glory be swallowed down, 
and engulphed in immediate and eternal ruin. We do expect in the 
final catastrophe of Papal Rome a combination and concentration of 
Almighty wrath. The vials of God's fiercest anger await her. The 
Plagues of Egypt, Sodom, and Jerusalem are in store for the Son 
of Perdition. In the battle of Armageddon, blood shall flow for 
1600 furlongs, to the bits of the horses' bridles. It is remarkable, 
that this 1600 furlongs make exactly the whole extent of the State of 
Rome, which the popes have so long held. From the Tiber to the 
Po is just 200 miles or 1600 furlongs. Still the last act of this ap- 
palling drama will be short. The artillery of Heaven's vengeance 
shall burst upon her in a moment ; for Omnipotence has a long con- 
troversy against her for her evil deeds. I have only time to add, that 



ROMAN CATHOLIC HELIGIQN. 233 

all things said by Daniel, Paul, and John perfectly harmonize in the 
suddenness and completeness of her destruction. However gradual, 
for a time, the consumption and decay of her strength and glory, she 
will die a violent death ; for all the witnesses attest that a sudden and 
overwhelming destruction awaits her. 

But amid the tremendous darkness of this dread hour, the bright 
and morning star of Israel appears : for as soon as the flying angel, 
as it flits across the heavens, announces in words of everlasting joy, 
that the hour of her judgment has come, the angel in his rear, atten- 
dant on his flight, shouts triumphantly from east to west : " It is fal- 
len! It is fallen ! Babylon the great is fallen!" Then shall there be 
" voices and thunders, and lightnings, and the universal earthquake 
which shall bring the cities of the Gentiles to the dust." Then will 
be the time when a voice from heaven exultingly shall say : "Re- 
joice over her, ye holy apostles and prophets ; for God has avenged 
you on her ! Then the immense multitude of saints, — the martyred 
millions in heaven shall say : Hallelujah ! Salvation, and glory, and 
power to the Lord our God : for his judgments are true and righteous : 
for he has judged the great harlot, who corrupted the earth with her 
fornication, and he has avenged the blood of his servants shed by her 
hand ! And a second time they said, Hallelujah ! and the smoke of 
her torment ascended forever and ever!" 

Then, indeed, shall the kingdoms of the whole earth become the 
kingdoms of the Lord, and of his anointed. Then the cause, so long 
oppressed, shall universally triumph : for ages of prosperity and joy 
are yet to crown the labors of Messiah; and untold millions, the 
trophies of his mediation are yet to gladden heaven and earth by their 
cheerful submission to his authority, who shall then be acknowledged 
the rightful King of kings and Lord of lords. 

Such a catastrophe is even feared at Rome itself. The popes have 
uttered it abroad ; they have proclaimed to the world that they felt St. 
Peter's chair tremble under them ; — that the throne of the prince of 
the apostles now totters to its fall. In dolorous strains they lament in 
their encyclical letters the prevalence of liberal (with them infidel) 
principles. Even in Italy and in Spain the sovereign pontiff observes 
indications of the spirit of the age. Free discussion, the liberty of 
the press, or even a whisper about free government, in the environs 
of Rome, grievously afflicts him. It has been said by the most intel- 
ligent in the internal affairs of Roman Catholic countries, that it 
would not be the most unexpected event if the present incumbent of 
the Papal chair should be the last of the popes of Rome. 

Public opinion is fast changing even in those countries, and there 
is an under-current which, like a subterraneous fire, is liquifying the 
foundations of the hills and mountains on which this proud super- 
structure rears its aspiring head. The pope is looking abroad, per- 
haps to the "mountains of the moon," or to the great valley, as to a 
wilderness, in which there may be an asylum reared for him in such 
a contingency as might drive him from the Eternal city. Who knows 
but that the ecclesiastic politics of Roman Catholic Europe have 
aided the tide of emigration prospectively, on the chances that are to 
decide the fortunes of the hierarchy in the Old World. 

But the destinies of western Rome, the theatre of the prophecies 
before us, exhaust the symbols of these predictions. The fortunes 
of our country and of the Papacy here, belong to another chapter 
u2 20 



234 DEBATE ON THE 

Whether it shall simultaneously fall in the New world, or shall seek 
here to recruit its shattered interests, and seek to found a great Ame- 
rican Roman Catholic hierarchy, is a question of grave import, 
which it is not my province to examine. 

Such, however, are its origin, its history, and its doom in the Old 
world, as sketched by the ringer of God. And the history of Eu- 
rope, for twelve hundred and thirty years, proves, beyond a reasonable 
doubt, that Daniel, Paul, and John spake as they were moved by the 
Holy Spirit. 

I cannot sit down without an apology for the rudeness of this great 
outline. It would require hours to fill up the map which I have laid 
before you. I have endeavored only to establish the grand landmarks, 
and point out the bearings of prophecy upon this institution. In hopes 
that my learned opponent will give me an opportunity to fortify the 
weak points, and to illustrate the obscure, I give place ; having, as I 
judge, redeemed the pledge which I tendered in my fourth proposition : 
for in the history of all time, no person will ever find any one sub- 
ject in which so many — nay, all the grand characteristics of this 
prophetic tyranny, so clearly, literally, and harmoniously meet as in 
Papal Rome. On this point I challenge special investigation* — [Time 
expired, plus 9 minutes.] 

Half past 10 o'olock, A. M. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

Before I take review of my friend's last speech, I wish to complete 
my previous one. I was speaking on the subject of auricular and pri- 
vate confession, when I was last up, and endeavoring to prove that it 
was a practice not contrary to scripture, nor immoral. I have, in proof 
of this position, quoted authorities from scripture, from the ancient re- 
cords of the Catholic church, and from the divines and practice of the 
English church. I now add to them, a quotation from the discipline 
of the Methodist church, edition of 1835, New-York. And, to show 
that every argument addressed to you by my friend, falls with as great 
force, nay greater, on Protestants, I will read the following extract, 
(p. 84.) You will observe, my friends, that I do not arraign the Me- 
thodists, as immoral, or quote their discipline from insidious motives ; 
but, to show that our practice is imitated in a way, by which it is not- 
improved, but liable to great abuse ; and that every thing that is said 
against us, may be said against others. 

Section III. — "Of the Band Societies. " Two, three or four true believers, who 
have confided in each other, form a band. — Only it is to be observed, that in one of 
these bands, all must be men, or all women ; and all married or all unmarried." p. S3. 
" Rules of the Band Societies." "The design of our meeting is to obey that 
command of God, Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, 
that ye may be healed." James, v. 16. 

" Some of the questions proposed to one, before he is admitted among us, may 
be to this effect." p. 84. " 1.° Have you the forgiveness of your sins? (a pretty 
hard question, my friends to answer, when the scripture assures us, Eccles. 
ix. 1-, " Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred;" in othrr 
words, whether he hath, or hath not, forgiveness of his sins.) 5.° Has no Efu« 
inward or outward, dominion over you? (What scrutiny!) 6.° Do you desire 
to be told of your faults? 7.° Do you desire to be told of all your faults, and 
that plain and home? 8.° Do you desire that every one of us should tell you 
from time to time, whatsoever is in our heart, concerning you? 9.° Consider! 
Do you desire we should tell you whatsoever we think, whatsoever we fear, 
whatsoever we hear concerning you? 10. Q Do you desire that in doing this, we 
should come as close as possible, that we should cut to the quick, and ser y \ 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION, 235 

your heart to the bottom? 11.° Is it your desire and desjgn to be on this and 
all other occasions, entirely open, so as to speak without disguise, and without 
reserve? 0^=* Any of the preceding questions maybe asked as often as occa- 
sion requires: the four following at every meeting. 85. 1.° What known sins 
have you committed since our last meeting? 2.° What particular temptations 
have you met with? 3.° How were you delivered? 4.° What have you thought, 
said, or done, of which you doubt whether it be sin, or not?" 

They must reveal the whole soul and body, inward and outward 
sins; and I defy my friend to quote any thing, even from Smith's 
Liguori, to surpass that. In the Catholic practice, the confession is 
to the priest alone ; who is bound by holy vows, before God and man, 
not to abuse his trust ; and it is unheard of, that a priest has ever vio- 
lated his oath, by divulging the secrets confided to his ear, as the 
minister of the sacrament. But tell such secrets to one woman, and, 
as the witty Frenchman said, when asked why he began a deed with 
the words, " Know one woman," &c. : " Why, if one woman knows 
it, it is equivalent to " all men," for they will all know it soon enough 
from her." (a laugh.) I suspect, that my opponent also suspects by 
this time, that he has got into a pretty bad^/fo. I shall be amused to 
see how he will eel out of the noose. 

Now, my friends, I have advanced Protestant testimony, to show, 
either that the champion of Protestantism has trodden most awfully 
upon Protestants' toes, or to prove that the Catholic practice of con- 
fession is not immoral. Did time permit, I might cite the most con- 
vincing testimony, from the fathers of the reformation, and from the 
German princes, to show, that when the restraints of the confessional 
were removed, the barriers of virtue seemed to be broken down. I do 
not choose to use their testimony before this audience. It is suffi- 
ciently well known, and it follows from it, that my opponent ought 
not to speak ill of confession ; for it has every where proved itself to 
be a useful practice, and one beneficial to society. It has been one of 
the most remarkable aids to justice, in cases which legal process could 
not reach. To show this, I will relate an anecdote. Some one, in 
New-York, stole a quantity of silver spoons, and, having confessed 
the crime to the priest, was told, that neither confession nor absolution 
•could be of any avails without restitution of the ill-gotten goods. Res- 
titution was accordingly made. Here is a fine practical comment on 
the subject. The police, having heard of the affair, insisted that the 
priest should disclose the name of the thief, and wished to compel him 
to do so, to promote thereby, as they supposed they should do, the 
cause of justice. The priest, of course, refused to commit a flagrant 
breach of trust, and modestly contended, that the cause of justice was 
irmeh more effectually promoted, by the course which a priest in such 
case pursued. Restitution had been made : was not this enough ? 
The police subpoenaed him to appear before the mayor of New-York, 
the celebrated De Witt Clinton, who decided that the priest could not 
he compelled to give up the name. The lawyer employed by the 
priest, was Mr. Sampson, a Protestant, and an ornament to the bar. 
He reported the trial. Before reading his speech, touching on this 
very topic of the morality or immorality of auricular confession, hear 
the admirable, but too brief preface, he has prefixed to the volume. I 
am sure, every high-minded and honorable man here, whether Pro- 
testant or Catholic, will subscribe cheerfully to his sentiments. " The 
general satisfaction given to every religious denomination, by the de- 



236 DEBATE ON THE 

cision of this interesting question, is well calculated to dissipate anti- 
quated prejudices and religious jealousies; and the reporter feels no 
common satisfaction in making it public. When that adjudication 
shall be compared with the baneful statutes and judgments in Europe, 
upon similar subjects, the superior equity and wisdom of American 
jurisprudence, and civil probity, will be felt; and it cannot fail to be 
well received by the enlightened and virtuous of every community, 
and will constitute a document of history, precious and instructive to 
the present and future generations." Having produced before the 
court a book called, "The Papist misrepresented, and truly repre- 
sented," and read the misrepresentation first, he continued : 

" The papist truly represented, believes it damnable in any religion to make 
gods of men. However he firmly holds, that when Christ speaking to his apos- 
tles said, John xx. 22, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall jor- 
give, they are for giv en; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained;" 
he gave them, and their successors, the bishops and priests of the Catholic 
church, authority to absolve any truly penitent sinner from his sins. And God 
having thus given them the ministry of reconciliation, and made them Christ's 
legates, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20, Christ's ministers and the dispensers of the 
mysteries of Christ, 1 Cor. iv. and given them power that whatsoever they 
loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven, Matt, xviii. 18, he undoubtedly be- 
lieves, that whosoever comes to them, making a sincere and humble confession 
of his sins, with a true repentance and a firm purpose of amendment, and a 
hearty resolution of turning from his evil ways, may from them receive absolu- 
tion, by the authority given them from heaven, and no doubt but God ratifies 
above the sentence pronounced in that tribunal ; loosing in heaven whatsoever 
is thus loosed by them on earth. And that, whosoever comes without the due 
preparation, without a repentance from the bottom of his heart, and real inten- 
tion of forsaking his sins, receives no benefit by the absolution; but adds sin to> 
sin, by a high contempt of God's mercy, and abuse of his sacraments." 

No wonder then, this latter being the true character of confession, if the bit- 
terest enemies of the Catholic faith have still respected it; and that discerning 
minds have acknowledged the many benefits society might practically reap from 
it; abstracted from its religious character. It has, I dare say, been oftener 
attacked by sarcasm than by good sense. The gentleman who argued against 
us, has respected himself too much to employ that weapon, and I believe he has 
said all that good sense could urge against it, which we take in very good part. 

But while this ordinance has been openly exposed to scotY and ridicule, its 
excellence has been concealed by the very secrecy it enjoins. If it led to licen- 
tiousness or danger, that licentiousness, or that danger, would have come to 
light, and there would be tongues enough to tell it. Whilst on the other hand, 
its utility can never be proved by instances, because it cannot be shown how 
many have been saved by it: how many of the young of both sexes, have been 
in the most critical juncture of their lives, admonished from the commission of 
some fatal crime, that would have brought the parents' hoary hairs with sorrow 
to the grave. These are secrets that cannot be revealed. 

Since however, the avenues that lead to vice are many and alluring, is it not 
well that some one should be open to the repenting sinner, where the fear of 
punishment and of the world's scorn, may not deter the yet wavering convert? 
If the road to destruction, is easy and smooth, sijacilis descensus averni, may 
it not consist with wisdom and policy, that there be one silent, secret path, where 
the doubting penitent may be invited to turn aside, and escape the throng that 
hurries him along? Some retreat, where, as in the bosom of a holy hermit, 
within the shade of innocence and peace, the pilgrim of this checquered li , 
may draw new inspirations of virtue and repose. 

If the thousand ways of error, are tricked with flowers, is it so wrong, that 
somewhere there should be a sure and gentle friend, who has no interest to be- 
tray, no care, but that of ministering to the incipient cure? The syren songs and 
blandishments of pleasure, may lead the young and tender heart astray, and the 
repulsive frown of stern authorit}', forbid return. One step then gained or lost, 
is victory or death. Let me then ask you that are parents, which would you 
prefer, that the child of your hopes should pursue the course of ruin, and c ■■. :i- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 237 

Unue with the companions of debauch and crime, or turn to the confessional^ 
where if compunction could once bring him, one gentle word r one well timed 
admonition, one friendly turn by the band, might save your child from ruin, and 
your heart from unavailing sorrow? And if the hardened sinner r the murderer,, 
the robber, or conspirator, can once be brought to bow his stubborn spirit, and 
kneel before his frail fellow man, invite him to pronounce a penance suited to 
his crimes,, and seek salvation through a full repentance, there is more gained r 
than by the bloodiest spectacle of terror, than though his mangled lknbs were 
broken on the wheel, his body gibbeted or given to the fowls of the air. If 
these reflections have any weight at all; if this picture be but true,, in any part,, 
better forbear and leave things as they are,, than too rashly sacrifice to jealous 
doubts, or shallow ridicule, an ordinance sanctioned by antiquity and founded 
on experience of man's nature. For if it were possible for even faith,, that re- 
moves mountains,, as they say r to alter this,, and with it to abolish the whole 
fabric, of which it is a vital part^what next would follow? Hundreds of millions 
of christians would be set adrift from all religious fastening! Would it be better 
to have so many atheists,, than so many christians? Or if not, what church is fit- 
ted to receive into its bosom, this great majority of all the christian world? Is 
it determined whether they shall become Jews or Philanthropists* Chinese or 
Mahommedans, Lutherans, or Calvinists, Baptists or Brownists, Materialists, 
Universalists or Destructionists, Arians,. Trinitarians, Presbyterians, Baxterians,, 
Sabbatarians^Millennarians^Moravians, Antinomians or Sandemanians, Jumpers, 
or Dunkers, Shakers or Quakers,. Burgers, Kirkers, Independents, Covenanters, 
Puritans, Hutchisonians, Johnsonians, or Muggletonians, I doubt not, that in 
every sect that I have named, there are good men, and if there be, I trust they 
will find mercy, but chiefly so as they are charitable, each to his neighbor. And 
why should they be otherwise? The gospel enjoins it; the constitution ordains 
it. Intolerance in this country could proceed from nothing but a diseased affec- 
tion of the pia mater, or the spleen." Catholic Question in America, p. 87. 

I will now dismiss the question of confession. There are many things 
to which I should like to give answers, in set speeches ; but, whoever 
reads this controversy, must not suppose that because I have not time 
to answer every accusation at length, there is no answer to them. I 
catch all I can of what my friend hurriedly utters ; for I cannot hear 
him, for his occasional hoarseness of voice. 

When my worthy opponent stated, in his long-blazoned proposition r 
" She is the man of sin," I imagined that he meant no more than the 
exciting of an innocuous laugh at the expense of' 4 Mother Church,'* 
by making a man of her in her old age* How great, then r has been 
my surprise, to see him, all sail set, dash headlong upon this rock of 
commentators, the "infames scopulos interpretum," around which are 
scattered in profusion, the wrecks of so many learned lucubrations, for 
the last 1800 years ! Catholics and Protestants, churchmen and lay- 
men, ancients and moderns, Papias and Newton, and last, not least,. 
Mr. Alexander Campbell, have all egregiously foundered upon this 
hidden shoal of controversy. 

No wonder, the learned Protestant, Sealiger, observed that Calvin 
was wise, in not writing upon the Apoealypse. " Sapuit Calvinus, quia 
in JLpocalypsin non scrvpsit /" Had we a congregation of scary old 
women, instead of intelligent and sensible men, around us, I should 
expect to be looked at by many a prying eye, confident of seeing one, 
at least of the ten horns, sprouting, or already strong, full-grown, and 
threateningly prominent from my forehead. But as I address reaso- 
ners, not visionaries, nor rhapsodists, nor fanatics, I must reason* 
leaving to my fanciful friend, the regions of imagination, into which 
he has flown, far above my reach. — I would not fetch him too hastily 
down, but by sending a few arguments, at respectful distances after 
one another to pluck a feather now, and a feather then from his wings^ 



238 DEBATE ON THE 

we may fetch him safely, and slowly, and with dignity back again to 
the apprehension of logic, and common sense. These are the wea- 
pons with which I, in the first place, proceed to grapple with the 
gentleman. 

1st. Is he an infallible? He pretends not, verily, to be such. 
Then what is all his fanciful theory worth ? It is based on reason and 
history, is it 1 Well but Hugo Grotius, and Hammond, and Dr. 
Herbert Thorndike, not to mention fifty others, of different religious 
denominations, but all Protestants, and at least as good biblical and 
classical scholars, as my learned antagonist, have ridiculed the notion 
of calling the pope of Rome Antichrist! If only one learned and 
pious Protestant were pitted against my friend, I would be even 
with him, or more than even. — How much superior in this argument, 
when I have so many wise men on my side, while all the monoma- 
niacs are on his ] "Let them not lead people by the nose" says Thorn- 
dike, " to believe they can prove their supposition that the pope is anti- 
christ, and the Papists, Idolaters, when they cannot," Thus the most 
learned and orthodox Protestant divines cannot subscribe to — they are, 
on the contrary, ashamed of— this interpretation of my learned opponent. 

2nd. Those Protestants, who agree with him in calling the pope, 
antichrist, disagree as to the particular pope to be so called, and still 
more, as to the time when the downfall of Babylon was to have taken 
place, or is to take place — as in the case of the Jewish testimony 
against Jesus Christ, there is no agreement among the witnesses. 
Braunbom confidently asserts that the popish antichrist was born in 
the year 86 ; that he grew to his full size in 376 ; that he was at his 
greatest strength in 636; that he began to decline in 1086; that he 
would die in 1640 ; and that the world would end in 1711. (Bayle Art. 
Braunbom) bishop Newton, Napper, Fleming, Beza, Melancthon, Bul- 
linger, had all their peculiar and conflicting theories, and none of them, 
we may safely assert, has found the Apocalyptic key. Turien, Alix and 
Kett, are in nothing more wise, and equally unsuccessful. 

3d. The scripture is opposed to him. For St. John says, 1st Ep. 
ch. 2. v. 22. " That the liar who denieth Jesus to be the Christ is 
antichrist." Now this, the pope has never done ; but, on the con- 
trary, he contends earnestly for the faith in the divinity of Christ, once 
delivered to the saints. 

4th. Church history is opposed to him. For it shews, at every 
page, how the pope sent missionaries into every part of the world, 
even the most distant, to gather barbarous nations into the fold of 
Christ, to preach to them salvation through his blood. Now accord- 
ing to the rule of the Savior, " a kingdom, divided against itself, 
cannot stand." And it is unheard of among all the signs of the anti- 
christ, that he was to be the strenuous, and for many centuries, the 
only apostle of the true Christ, the Savior. Even the worst pope, 
was true to doctrine, and made the beams of the sun of righteousness, 
of pure, christian faith, gild the villages of Tartary and cheer the 
roving hordes in its deserts. 

5th. My friend is opposed to himself; for he said to day, that the 
eyes of the little horn signified wisdom and knowledge. Now as the 
Catholic church is the mother of ignorance, the victim of blind and 
ridiculous superstitions, the cause of all the obscurity of the dark 
ages, she cannot be the antichrist. Again its mouth indicated elo- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 239 

quence, was eloquent. — Then my opponent is, himself, the beast, for 
his speech was truly eloquent. Indeed the ingenuity with which he 
dressed up even the old story of " she is fallen, the mighty Babylon, 
the great harlot, which corrupted the earth — Allelujah, Allelujah !" 
is proof positive that would, by his command of language, deceive, if 
possible, even the elect, into the belief, that he had succeeded, where 
so many had failed, in breaking the seal of the mysterious volume. 
He has clearly put the lion in a net, and not so much as a mouse 
durst approach, to gnaw a hole, to let him out. 

6th. He is opposed to Catholics. For they have been wont to ap- 
ply the words of St. John, just before he speaks of the antichrist, to 
the Protestant sects, which, they conceive, are fast hastening into the 
arms of the Unitarians, who deny the divinity of Christ. " They 
went out from us ; but they were not of us ; for if they had been of 
us, they would, no doubt, have remained with us, but that they may 
be manifest that they are not all of us." I have already said some- 
thing of the " monster," not merely " beast," but " monster," which 
my friend attempted, like Prometheus, to form and steal fire from 
heaven to animate, that he might call it " Apostolic Protestantism." 
This, in our estimation, may be found to possess, some, at least, of 
the characteristics of the Apocalyptic beast. But we should beg leave 
to baptize it "Polypos" or "Legion." We could very satisfac- 
torily shew that it has made war on the saints, and devoured them 
by thousands, not to say millions ; that a portion of the beast so detains, 
even now, when light from heaven is breaking, millions of the saints, 
of those who for the Confession of Jesus Christ and for conscience 
sake are reduced to a galling servitude, a poverty, and a degradation, 
far worse than the lot of the negro, of the southern rice-fields. 

My friend began by observing that symbolical language gives great 
scope for the imagination. It sets us adrift upon a sea of speculation. 
Is he ready to embark upon that sea 1 Are his sails trimmed ] Is his 
compass ready ] If the sad experience, to which I have alluded, has 
not disinclined him to the voyage, I assure him that he will find it to 
eventuate like that of the three wise men of Gotham, whom our illus- 
trious compatriot Washington Irving, sent to sea in a bowl. We may 
drift with every wind, and current, through a thousand perils, on this 
wide ocean of imagination. But, my friends, what has imagination to 
do with this question ? She is a very good slave, but a very bad mis- 
tress. Give me full scope with your imagination and I can prove to 
you any thing and every thing, until we all are like the novel and ro- 
mance writers of the present day — "in fancy ripe, in reason rotten." 
Novels and romances are, confessedly, w T orks of fiction. They are not 
expected to contain reason, and therefore they escape censure. But 
when men pretend to pass orT their day-dreams for the oracles of Hea- 
ven, they should remember the law of Deuteronomy, xiv. 5, " that the 
Prophet and forger of dreams shall be slain," and it tney tear not even 
the fate of the false seer, at least, they should apprehend the lash of 
criticism and ridicule. I know in this good city, a respectable dame, 
who is not a Catholic, but who has written a ream of paper on the 
Apocalyptic visions. I suggest to my friend that he may possibly ga- 
ther additional light on the subject, by comparing notes with her. She 
has made it the study of years, and on one occasion, as I am credibly 
informed, under the influence of the text's inspiration, she came into 



240 DEBATE ON THE 

€hurch, with the sun, moan, and stars pictured upon her dress, and 
trailing beneath her feet as she solemnly moved through the aisle. 
You, sir, may have surpassed this lady in eloquence, though of that I 
am not quite sure, but, certainly, she was a match for you, in imagina- 
tion. My friend observed that the sun would go down, it would take 
him a whole day, to shew the audience the rationale of the conceit with 
which he has favored us — I could not help assenting to the gentle- 
man's remark, and saying, in my mind, that it was even so- — nay, that 
it would take 365 days, before he could shew that there was anything 
that was reasonable. 

Southey observes that the " Romish church was, in the worst of 
times, however defiled, the salt of the earth, the sole conserva- 
tive PRINCIPLE, BY WHICH EUROPE WAS SAVED FROM THE LOWEST AND 

most brutal barbarism ;" and yet in the very face of this reluctant 
tribute, by a first-rate Protestant historian, Mr. Campbell labors 
to demonstrate that this very church was Anti-Christ ! He places 
her on the Mediterranean, although it is a weary ride before you reach 
her splendid domes and everlasting — maugre the liquifying — hills, on 
which she sits, in humble, if hi queenly majesty. The Tiber, like its 
namesake in the district, instead of being called a sea, may well be 
called a " Goose creek" now. 

My friend^ s Lexicography, Iconisms and Synchronisms, must have 
all passed for argument strong as the rock of Gibraltar, in his own 
opinion. It is unanswered and unanswerable. He says that God al- 
ways by a beast, means some monster or other. Then Jesus Christ 
must be 'some monster or other,' for what is the cry of Heaven's Ju- 
bilee at the end of all things ? " Behold the * Lion 9 of the tribe of Judah 
hath prevailed ,•" and again — " Worthy was the Lamb that was slain," 
&c. &c. My friend would make a strange havoc with the language 
and imagery of heaven— a curious monster of a Lamb and a Lion, than 
which notwithstanding all he has said, I will force him to confess that 
there can be nothing, as there is nothing, more beautiful than this en- 
tire passage. The Evangelists are represented in the vision of Eze- 
kiel as Beasts and Birds of prey. Are they too Anti-Christs 1 Eng- 
land has chosen the Rampant and Roaring Lion for her emblem. My 
friend has praised and dispraised her. What portion of Anti-Christ, 
of the man of sin, is she ? She has persecuted — and I might with far 
more truth say to her, what the martyred Robert Emmett said to Lord 
Norbury, " If all the innocent blood your ladyship has shed could' be col" 
lected into one great reservoir, your Ladyship might swim in it" My 
friend spoke of Elizabeth's long life. He did not say of how many 
years she abridged the life of the "Fair Queen of Scots" Politically, 
intellectually, and morally, Rome, or if you will, the papacy was the 
Savior of Europe, as all historians agree. How, then, could she be 
the ' Beast]' It is preposterous. Why all this has been prophesied 
and falsified, and prophesied and falsified again. Forty, or fifty years 
ago, as my venerable friend there (Rev. Mr. Badin, the first priest or- 
dained in the United States) can inform you, almanacs were published 
in Kentucky, stating the precise day and minute, when the Hallelujah 
was to be intoned for the Downfall of Babylon ! The day has passed, 
and what of it] I have got a book here, which makes Napoleon Bo- 
naparte the man of sin. Born on an Island, in the Mediterranean, 
Corsica, deriving his power from the French Revolution, which affect- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 241 

cd to crush Christianity, l'infame; which substituted decadi for Sa- 
bath ; profaned temples : adored a vile woman in the temple of God, 
immolated and expatriated thousands upon thousands of priests, and 
hoped that the last of kings might be strangled with the viscera of the 
last of priests : plucked Pius VII. from the chair of St. Peter, drag- 
ged the saints, the venerable monks by their beards, from the horns of 
the altar, &c. &c. The Apocalypse is a sealed book, which God has 
not vouchsafed to unfold to man. Better practise what we do know, 
with certainty, of his adorable will, rather than blaspheme what we do 
not understand. Meanwhile, if ever there was made a plausible appli- 
cation of this mysterious prophecy, behold it in the rise, progress, and 
arrest of Mahommedanism. The sea, or lake, the year 66G, the war 
on Christ and the saints; the sword and Koran; the watch-word Be- 
lieve or die, the conspiracy of Christendom during the crusades to 
check its power, the gloriously disastrous battle of Lepanto, the pre- 
sent crippled, but still formidable state of Islamism, all pictured so 
vividly as almost to convince us that we have surely discovered the 
object of the prediction. Let us read from Waddington. I shall make 
a few brief pauses which you will fill up by appropriate reflections. 
How few have understood the appalling dangers that this civil ai»l 
religious despotism of the Impostor of Mecca, threatened, during so 
many ages, to Christianity and the world ! 

"The seventh century was marked by the birth of a new and resolute adver- 
sary, who began his career with the most stupendous triumphs, who has torn 
from us the possession of half the world, and who retains his conquests even to 
this moment. Mahomet was born about the year 570; we are ignorant of the pre- 
cise period of the nativity of that man who wrought the most extraordinary re- 
volution in the affairs of this globe, which the agency of any being merely hu- 
man has ever yet accomplished. His pretended mission did not commence till 
he wa3 about forty years old, and the date of his celebrated flight from Mecca, 
the Hedjirah, or era of Mahometan nations, is 622, A. D. The remainder of his 
life was spent in establishing his religion and his authority in his native land, Ara- 
bia; and the sword with which he finally completed that purpose, he bequeathed, 
for the universal propagation of both, to his followers. His commission was 
zealously executed; and, in less than a century after his death, his faith was un- 
interruptedly extended by a chain of nations from India to the Atlantic. 

The fate of Persia was decided by the battle of Cadesia, in 636. In Syria, 
Damascus had already fallen, and after the sanguinary conflict of Yermuk, where 
the Saracens for the first time encountered and overthrew a christian enemy, the 
conquerors instantly proceeded to the reduction of Jerusalem; that grand reli- 
gious triumph they obtained in 637. In the year following Aleppo and Anti- 
och fell into their hands, which completed the conquest of Syria. Thence they 
proceeded northward as far as the shores of the Euxine and the neighborhood of 
Constantinople. 

The invasion of Egypt took place in 638, and within the space of three years, 
the whole of that populous province was in possession of the infidels. Alexan- 
dria was the last city which fell; and in somewhat more than a century after the 
expulsion of philosophy from Europe by a christian legislator, the schools of 
Africa were closed in their turn by the arms of an unlettered Mahometan. 

The success of the Saracens was not inconsiderably promoted by the religious 
dissentions of their christian adversaries. A vast number of heretics who had 
been oppressed and stigmatized by edicts and councils were scattered over the 
surface of Asia; and these were contented to receive a foreign master, of whose 
principles they were still ignorant, in the place of a tyrant whose injustice they 
had experienced. But in Egypt, especially, the whole mass of the native popula- 
tion was unfortunately involved in the Jacobite heresy; and few at that time 
were found, except the resident Greeks, who adhered to the doctrines of the 
church. The followers of Eutyches formed an immediate alliance with the sol- 
diers of Mahomet against a Catholic prince; and they considered that there was 
nothing unnatural in that act, since they hoped to secure for themselves, under a 



242 DEBATE ON THE 

Mahometan* the toleration which had been refused by an orthodox government. 
We should remark, however, that this hope, the pretext of their desertion, was 
with many the suggestion of their malice: that besides the recollection of wrongs, 
and the desire to escape or revenge them, the)' were inflamed as furiously as 
their persecutors by that narrow sectarian spirit, which is commonly excited 
most keenly where the differences are most trifling; and which, while it exagge 
rated the lines that separated them from their fellow christians, blinded them to 
the broad gulf which divided all alike from the infidel. 

From Egypt, the conquerors rushed along the northern shore of Africa; and 
though their progress in that direction was interrupted by the domestic dissen- 
tions of the prophet's family, even more than by the occasional vigor of the 
christians, they were in possession of Carthage before the end of the seventh 
century. Thence they proceeded westward, and after encountering some oppo- 
sition from the native Moors, little either from the Greek or Vandal masters of 
the country, they completed their conquests in the year 709. 

Hitherto the Mahometans had gained no footing in Europe; and it may seem 
strange that the most western of its provinces should have been that which was 
first exposed to their occupation. But the vicinity of Spain to their latest con- 
quests, and the factious dissentions of its nobility, gave them an early opportu- 
nity to attempt the subjugation ot that country. Their success was almost unu- 
sually rapid. In 711 they overthrew the Gothic monarchy by the victory of 
Xeres;and the two following years were sufficient to secure their dominion over 
the greatest part of the peninsula. 

The waters of this torrent were destined to proceed still a little further. Ten 
years after the battle of Xeres, the Saracens crossed the Pyrenees and overran 
with little opposition the southwestern provinces of France — * the vineyards of 
Gascony and the city Bourdeaux were possessed by the sovereign of Damas- 
cus and* Samarcand; and the south of France, from the mouth of the Garonne to 
that of the Rhone, assumed the manners and religion of Arabia.' Still dissatisfied 
with those ample limits, or impatient of any limit, these children of the desert 
again marched forward into the centre of the kingdom. They were encamped 
between Tours and Poictiers, when Charles Martel, the mayor, or duke of the 
Franks, encountered them. It is too much to assert that the fate of Christianity 
depended upon the result of the battle which followed; but if victory had de- 
clared for the Saracens, it would probably have secured to them in France the 
same extent, perhaps the same duration, of authority which they possessed in 
Spain. Next they would have carried the horrors of war and Islamism into Ger- 
many or Britain; but there, other fields must have been fought, against nations of 
warriors as brave as the Franks, by an invader who was becoming less power- 
ful and even less enthusiastic, as he advanced farther from the head of his resour- 
ces and his faith." Waddington's Church Hist. pBge 135. New York edit. 1835. 

This is the tyranny from which the pope has saved us, and for it 
civilization and religion owe him a debt which they will never be 
able to repay. 

My opponent ran a parallel between pagan and Catholic Rome. 
Does he not know that the pagan religion borrowed many of its es- 
sential rites, and not a few of its forms, from the indistinct knowl 
edge of a primary revelation made to Adam and to the patriarchs, 
and afterwards from the written law ? And might I not run a more 
perfect parallel between the Catholic and the Jewish institutions, 
while the latter was divine 1 The Catholics have a Pontifex Maxi- 
mus, or High Priest; so had the Jews. The Catholics have a church 
to guide the people ; the Jews had a synagogue for the same purpose. 
The Catholics have a famous temple, to whose doctrine and worship 
all must conform ; so had the Jews. The Catholic pontiff enjoys some 
temporal power; so did the Jewish pontiff. The Catholic pontiff sprin- 
kles holy water on the people ; the Jewish pontiff sprinkled them with 
the blood of a heifer, that was slain. The Catholic says, when re- 
minded by the lustral water, emblematical of the blood of Christ, of 
the power and mercy which can cleanse the stains of the conscience, 
" Thou shalt sprinkle me, O Lord, with hyssop, and I shall be cleans- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 243 

ed ; thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow." Da- 
vid also said, " Thou shalt sprinkle me, O Lord, with hyssop, and I 
shall be cleansed ; thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter 
than snow." The Catholics have nuns; so had the Jews nuns, like 
the prophetess Ann, who for "four score and four years departed not 
from the temple, by fastings and prayers during night and day." Luke, 
xi. 36, 37. It is thus that his parallel crumbles ! Lateinos is not 
the name of the Catholic church. The title that the pope assumes is 
" scrvus servorum Dei," servant of the servants of God. The name 
of Luther, Dioclesian, Julian, of the true God, himself, could be made 
to tally with the numbers 666 — see Robinson's Calmet, p. 71. I 
could take letters out of the name of Alexander Campbell to mean 
the same thing. 

Mr. Campbell.— If you can, I will give up the argument. (A 
laugh). 

Bishop Purcell. — What language must it be 1 Hebrew, Syriac, 
Greek, Latin or English? No matter. E is in some languages — 
300— L is 50.— 

.Mr. Campbell. — You have not yet learned the numeral alphabet. 

Bishop Purcell. — I cannot make the sum right off, but have a 
little patience with me and I will pay you all. (A laugh. — The au- 
dience having composed themselves at the request of the Moderators, 
Bishop Purcell proceeded.) Thus, you see, my friends, the name of 
my friend helps us in this matter, for it is the name of a man, and the 
name of a beast, too, with a hunch on its back, when we can find the 
lacking numerals to decipher him. He has made a certain admission, 
after having denied it all the week, that the apostles founded the see 
of Rome. This shows that the truth will prevail, and that my friend 
will laugh in his sleeve at you, if you believe all his fanciful and ro- 
mancing conjectures about the man of sin. Again — another contra- 
diction. If all that blood is to be shed, in the exarchate of Raven- 
na, we are here, in Ohio, and safe enough from the danger under our 
happy constitution. — We need have no fear of being crushed beneath 
the fragments of that crazy and tottering chair, the pope is sitting in 
so uneasily ; the very rumblings of the volcanic hills will die, and 
their last echoes be inaudible on this side of the Atlantic, and as 
the Apocalyptic magician has pointed his wand, to the dilapidated 
jaws of the Beast, the conclusion is plain, that, as he has lost all his 
teeth, he can't bite ! we need not be afraid of him. 

We are told the pope suffers himself to be adored, and calls him- 
self God. So far from this, we have seen how he humbles himself be- 
fore the altar, how he prays the humblest of the saints to pray for him 
to God, and how he has had a prayer inscribed in our church liturgy, 
whereby we ask of God to preserve him from all evil, especially from 
the worst of all evils, sin. Does this look like exalting himself above 
every thing that is called God 1 The present pope is said to be one 
of the best of men. The only faults alleged against him are that he gives 
employment to a large number of poor tradesmen, rebuilding the 
burned church of St. Paul — and that he takes snuff somewhat profuse- 
ly. I wish every one here had as little to answer for. 

Much has been said about the gold and silver of the Vatican. My 
friend, I am sure, knows that money is a necessary evil. If we all had 
a little more of it, we might purchase heaven with the mammon of ini- 
quity; but the pope is now poor. If I am rightly informed, his ties,?* 



244 DEBATE ON THE 

sury is drained. He has fortunately, or unfortunately, lost this mark 
of the beast, if it be one. But my worthy opponent has overlooked 
this remarkable fact. Judea abounded in gold ; St. Peter's, in Rome, 
was never covered all over, like the temple of Jerusalem, with plates 
of gold. When Titus besieged Jerusalem, the Jews swallowed their 
gold to hide it from their rapacious conquerors — and this was made a 
new incident in the dreadful vengeance of heaven upon that deicidal 
people, for the soldiers, in quest of gold, ripped open the bodies of 
the ill-fated victims whom famine, or the arrow, had precipitated from 
the ramparts. After the sacking of Jerusalem, so great was the quan- 
tity of gold obtained in it, that gold fell, in sterling value, throughout 
the Roman empire. This would prove, that Jerusalem was the beast. 
How vain are all the gentleman's eloquent remarks. Not one of these 
marks is peculiar to Rome, while many of them are not applicable to 
her at all. I will say nothing about the millstone ; it went to the 
bottom, and so did the gentleman's argument. 

My friends, I have one or two arguments to borrow from a very dis- 
tinguished Catholic writer, Dr. Lingard, author of the history of Eng- 
land. We shall see whether my friend has any of the symptoms of 
mania here so graphically described. 

" During- the long- lapse of more than fifteen centuries, the visions of the apos- 
tle St. John had been enveloped in the thickest obscurity. At the era of there- 
formation, a strong ray of apocalyptic light dissipated the clouds which popery 
had raised: and since that period every old woman, of either gender, has been 
able to unravel with ease the web of mystery, and to reveal to the world the 
true meaning of the book of Revelations. From the days of Luther to the pres- 
ent, we have possessed a numerous and uninterrupted succession of translators, 
lecturers, expositors, and annotators, who may truly be said to have seen vis- 
ions, and to have dreamed dreams; and, lest by some mishap the pious race 
should become extinct, Bishop Warburtonhas left a fund for the support or the 
reward of the more fiery among its members.* I may admire his zeal, but not 
his wisdom. He probably did not see that he was thus endeavoring to diffuse 
and perpetuate an alarming species of intellectual disease, which, for the sake 
of distinction, I shall beg leave to call the apocalyptic mania. It has not, indeed, 
been hitherto classed in any system of nosology; but it is not on that account 
less real, or less general ; ana, I trust, I shall confer a benefit on the public by 
proceeding to point out the origin, and to describe the symptoms of this the- 
ological malady. 

When •' the magnanimous fathers of the reformation" broke from the com- 
munion of the Catholic church, they found it convenient to justify their schism, 

by pleading that the Pope was Antichrist, and Rome the scarlet w of 

Babylon. This doctrine, while it inflamed the bigotry, flattered the spiritual 
pride of their disciples; with conscious superiority of birth, they sought in the 
apocalypse for proof of the ignominious descent of their opponents, and their 
sacrilegious familiarity with the mysterious volume, quickly produced the 
disease, which is the subject of the present observations. Its progress was 
rapid. It soon pervaded every department in life; but its most distinguish- 
ed victims were, and still are, chosen from among those churchmen, who, 
from the instructions of the nursery or the university, have imbibed a lively 
dread of the horrors of popery. The mania first manifests itself by a restless 
anxiety respecting the future fortunes of the church, and a strong attachment to 

Erophetic hieroglyphics: the antichrist, and the man of sin; the beast with ten 
orns, and the beast with two horns; the armies of Gog and Magog; the fall of 
Babylon, and the arrival of the millennium, become the favorite, the only sub- 
jects of study; false and ridiculous perceptions amuse the imagination; the 
judgment is gradually enfeebled, and, at last, the most powerful minds sink into 
the imbecility of childhood. Of the truth of this description we have a melan- 

* According to his will, an annual sermon is preached in Lincoln's Inn Chapel, to prove 
the Pope to be Antichrist, &e, &c. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 245 

choly proof in the great Sir Isaac Newton. To him Nature seemed to have un- 
locked her choicest secrets: as a philosopher he was and is still unrivalled: but 
no sooner did he direct his telescope from the motions of the heavenly bodies 
to the visions in the apocalypse, than his head grew dizzy, the downfall of pope- 
ry danced before his eyes, and he hazarded predictions which on the scale of 
prophets, have placed him far beneath the well known Francis Moore, physician 
and almanac-maker. 

It should be observed, that this intellectual malady, like the other species of 
mania, assumes a thousand different shapes, according- to the predispositions of 
the subject which it attacks. I shall produce a few instances. In 1789, Mr. 
Cook published a translation of the apocalypse, with keys to open its meaning 
to his readers. This reverend gentleman was Greek professor in the universi- 
ty at Cambridge; and, as his reading naturally led him to the Greek poets, he 
was determined that the author of the apocalypse should be a poet, and, more- 
over, the rival of Sophocles. In his opinion, the apocalypse is a tragedy form- 
ed on the same plan as the (Edipus Tyrannus. "The drama opens with the 
temple scene; the seals, the trumpet, and the vials unfold the plot; and though 
the antichrist does not die, no more than (Edipus, yet he falls into such calami- 
ty as makes him an object of pity, and justifies the lamentations pronounced on 
his downfall." Nor is this all. By trying one of his apocalyptic keys on the 
Odysse} r of Homer, he has discovered that poem also to have been inspired, and 
informs us that the suitors of Penelope represent the vassals of popery, who, un- 
der the pretence of courting the bride, the christian church, devour all the good 
things in her house, till Christ, the true Ulysses, the °£o{ o-ooj or safe way, ar- 
rives, and wreaks his vengeance on them. 

In Mr. Granville Sharp, the favorite apocalyptic Nostradamus of the Rector 
of Newnton Longville, (Le Messreply, p. 193, 202,) the mania has shewn itself 
in a different manner. This gentleman is known to be singularly partial to mo- 
nosyllables. He has written a volume on the Hebrew letter vau, and another on 
the Greek articles, o, j*, to. From letters and articles, he was induced, by his 
previous success and the importunity of his friends to proceed to the explica- 
tion of the visions in the book of Revelations. Here the apocalyptic mania soon 
discovered itself: but the appearance of the disease was modified by his pre- 
vious habits of monosyllabic investigation. He convinced himself that the name 
of the beast was Lateinos, and that Lateinos must signify the Latin church. The 
proof is curious. Lateinos, he contends, is derived from the Hebrew monosyl- 
lable LAT, which means to cover or conceal. Now the Latin church, in the 
celebration of the mass, conceals some of the prayers from the people, by order- 
ing them to be pronounced with a low voice: therefore the Latin church is La- 
teinos, the beast in the apocalypse. Moreover theliead of the Latin church resides 
in the palace of the Lateran, a name derived from the same monosyllable LAT: 
and the Lateran palace is situated in the country anciently called Latium, an ap- 
pellation also derived from the same monosyllable Lat: and Latium is a province 
of that part of Europe called Italy, which also derives its name from the same 
monosyllable LAT. Be not startled, gentle reader: apocalyptic maniacs can 
with equal facility read backwards or forwards; and Mr. Sharp informs us, that, 
if we read Italy backwards, we shall have Ylati, in the midst of which is the He- 
brew monosyllable LAT. Naviget Anticyram! 

Were I to describe all the varieties of the disease, these observations would 
swell to an unmeasurable bulk. I shall therefore content myself with noticing 
the prophetic, which is perhaps the most prevalent, species. When the mind is 
seized with this mania, the regions of futurity are instantly opened to its sight: it 
can point out the date and nature of every event which is to happen ; it can in- 
form us in what year popery, Mohammedism, and infidelity are to perish; when 
and where antichrist is to be born, reign, and die: who is to restore the Holy 
Land to the Jews; and in what year the new Jerusalem is to descend from heaven. 
It is in vain that preceding prophets have frequently outlived their own predic- 
tions: the lessons of experience are heard with contempt: and each new seer is 
convinced of the truth of his own visions. Among those who have suffered late- 
ly under thi3 form of the disease, the most distinguished are Mr. Whitaker and 
Mr. Faber, both scholars of extensive erudition, and both equally animated 
against the Church of Rome. They both agree that Luther is the angel with the 
everlasting gospel; and, if by his gospel they mean the solifidian doctrine alrea- 
dy noticed, they have a chance to be right. It may justly be called everlasting; 
v3 



246 DEBATE ON THE 

for it will probably find proselytes as long as man shall dwell on the earth. Mr. 
Whitaker discovers that the two horns of the beast are the two monastic orders 
of the Dominicans and Franciscans. Why they should claim the preference be- 
fore their brethren, of greater antiquity, or more general diffusion, I know not; 
but it is certainly unfortunate that the beast has not four horns: then you, ye 
sons of Benedict and Loyola, might have had the honor of being seated on the 
remaining two. The same gentleman informs us that the Ottoman empire will 
soon fall, Rome be wrested from the pope, and the seat of the papacy be trans- 
ferred to Jerusalem. Mr. Faber makes an equal display of erudition; but the 
third angel, Mr. Whitaker's Zuingle,he has placed in a most uncomfortable situa- 
tion: he has bound him fast in the midst of the ocean, and transformed him into 
the insular church of England! Nor does he always agree with his rival in more 
important points. The two beasts he shews to be the two contemporary Ro- 
man empires, temporal and spiritual, under the emperors and the popes: and 
gives his readers the pleasing intelligence, that both the Turk and the Pope will 
expire in the year 1868. Though he does not expect to witness this happy event 
himself, yet he has the goodness to promise a sight of it to many of the present 
generation: 

T\jit£, qtXot, axi ftsivxV esri %£Ovov, 0<p§» Saw^iv 
E< ereov Xx\%xg /axvtsvstxi, \\s xxt ax*. 

Unfortunately for these two prophets, each disputed the accuracy of the pre- 
dictions of his rival: an animated controversy followed; and the result has been 
a conviction in the minds of most of their readers, that each has completely suc- 
ceeded in demolishing the system of his adversary, and completely failed in estab- 
lishing his own. 

Thus have I attempted to describe the different symptoms of this disease; but 
I hope I shall be excused from indicating the method of cure. When the mania 
has once obtained possession of the brain, I doubt whether three Anticyrae would 
be sufficient to expel it. I would rather, like Dr. Trotter in his treatise on the 
nervous temperament, endeavor to correct that predisposition which natu- 
rally leads to it. I would advise the Protestant theologian to suspend, for a while 
at least, his assent to some of those doctrines, which education has taught him 
to revere as sacred. I would have him learn to doubt whether it be certain, that 
a long succession of bishops, through many centuries, can be that one individual 
described by St. Paul as the man of sin: or that the church, from which almost 
all other churches have received the knowledge of the gospel is, "the great 
mother of harlots," and the kingdom of Antichrist. I would recommend to him, 
if he must decipher the apocalyptic hieroglyphics, to attend to the solemn assev- 
eration of their author, which is frequently repeated both in the first and the last 
chapters, that his predictions "Were, even at the time in which he wrote, on the 
point of being fulfilled. In the destruction of Jerusalem, and the first period of 
the christian history, he may find enough to exercise his ingenuity, and may per- 
haps stumble on the only clue which can lead to the solution of the difficulties 
contained in this mysterious volume. I am aware that what I ask, will not readily 
be granted to me. The doctrine that popery is the beast, the pope antichrist, 
and christian Rome the whore of Babylon, is, I know, an important part of the 
new gospel preached by Luther and his associates: it forms, to use the words of a 
learned prelate,* " a primary pillar of the reformed faith." But when I con- 
sider the dangerous consequences of this doctrine, its deleterious effects on the 
judgment of some among the most distinguished writers of the Protestant com- 
munion, the ridicule which it serves to throw on the inspired writings, and the 
handle which it gives to the sneers and contempt of the professed infidel, I in- 
dulge a well-founded hope that, for the sake of religion and humanity, it will 
meet with little support from the enlightened characters, who now preside in 
the established church. If it once formed a pillar of the reformation, I conceive 
it could only be a temporary support, which may now be removed without dan- 
ger to the fabric. To the pious fraud, from its utility, the first reformers might 
easily reconcile their consciences; at the present day it may be rejected by their 
successors with some credit: it cannot be retained without disgrace. 

* Watson's Theological Tracts, vol. v. p. 7. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. * 247 

Half-past 11 o'clock, A. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

The bishop has not given one but many and various proofs of the 
truth of an adage of some currency and authority. Napoleon in his 
flight from Moscow, musing on recent disasters, often uttered this ex- 
pression : " There is but one short step from the sublime to the ridicu- 
lous." I never before witnessed so illustrious a proof of the invin- 
cible force of the argument from prophecy. I looked at the gentle- 
man writhing under the accumulating evidence, amounting almost to 
demonstration, that I had asserted no defamation in my fourth propo- 
sition. Instead of meeting the subject with scripture and argument, 
like the scuttle fish, he darkens the waters that he may escape the 
eye and the hand of his pursuer. His effort at mystification is as 
ridiculous as it is imbecile. He invokes the assistance of some old 
lady to create a laugh ; but the audience has got tired laughing at his 
manoeuvres. The subject is two grave, and the audience too deeply 
penetrated with, the awful truth which they had just heard to be amus- 
ed by such levity. Failing so manifestly, in the attempt to disparage 
all use of the prophecies, he undertakes to explain. He is driven 
into Asia to the Koran, and to Mecca for the man of sin ! How have 
the weapons of war perished ! Facts are not found in the history of 
Mahomet or Mahometanism, to explain these prophecies : and conscious 
of this, his own courage fails, and a second time he resorts to ridicule. 
As Voltaire, Volney, and other wits, have fruitlessly attempted to 
laugh Christianity out of countenance, he endeavors to place the whole 
matter before you as idle and absurd. Could my rhetorical and ingen- 
ious opponent afford more unequivocal manifestations of confusion and 
dismay, than you have now witnessed ] But, my friends, we are not 
to be laughed out of onr argument, that stands before us like the rock 
of Gibraltar. The waves that strike it, but foam out their imbecility, 
and are broken to pieces. He may, indeed, torture his ingenuity to 
escape from an argument, which he dare not, which he cannot meet ; 
but he will torture it in vain. 

The effort of my opponent has been as much to disparage prophecy 
itself, as any mode of interpreting it. According to him, prophecy 
is no gift : On our principles, it is at least as useful and interesting 
as history. It is one of the kindest boons of heaven, that we are per- 
mitted sometimes to peep into the future, guided by the lamp of eter- 
nity. The whole Bible, is for the most part, history and prophecy. 
It is almost all history, for prophecy is the history of the future. God 
never held the human family in suspense respecting their vital inter- 
ests. Their origin, duty, and destiny, he has equally regarded in all 
his communications. Soon as our first parents had transgressed in 
Eden, he permitted not one sun to go down, till he appeared to them 
and revealed a portion of his purposes. In a single period he con- 
denses a miniature view of the future destinies of mankind : " I will 
place enmity," said he to the serpent, " between thy seed and her 
seed : it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." I 
thank our Heavenly Father, that he has thus from the beginning vouch- 
safed to his children something of the future. Indeed, so abundant 
are his revelations, his promises which are all prophecies, and his 
prophecies which all threaten or promise, that there is scarce a single 
page of the whole Bible without a prophecy inscribed upon it. Cer- 



248 " DEBATE ON THE 

tainly my opponent has forgotten this ! Has he not, according to his 
ability, been turning into ridicule prophecy itself, the Bible itself 
God's good and perfect gift 1 But if prophecy be wholly unintelli- 
gible ; Why, I ask, should it constitute so large a portion of God's 
only book to man 1 But I will not farther debate this question. The 
gentleman himself would admit all this, on any other occasion. 

I did not intend, indeed, and I am sorry I proposed, an argument of 
this kind before such an assembly, limited as I am at present to an 
hour or two, at most to complete it. If my opponent would devote 
with me a day or two to this subject, I might even satisfy himself, 
not only that prophecy is a gift, an intelligent gift; but that much of 
it pertains to the origin, progress, and catastrophe of that very hierar- 
chy, of which he is himself a member. 

There are two kinds of maps in schools ; one gives both the place 
and the name of it, the other (sometimes called a blank map,) gives 
the place without the name. The former represents history ; the lat- 
ter, prophecy. Prophecy is as correct a map of the future, as. histo- 
ry is of the past ; but it is not always quite so obvious. I have taught 
geography with these two sorts of maps. The pupil studied on that 
inscribed with the names of the places, and we examined him on the 
blank map. The study of fulfilled prophecy, with the history of the 
past, prepares us for the blank map, the outline of the future. On 
the blank map, we can learn the great outline of things — their rela- 
tive positions, distances and magnitudes. We may sometimes err, in 
fixing the proper name on every place : but we cannot greatly err, in 
forming a useful acquaintance with the whole ; especially, having a 
correct knowledge of what is past, or of certain portions of the past, 
which must ever be a key to the future. Thus we can acquire a clear 
and satisfactory outline of the vast expanse of future time, although 
we may, sometimes, err in a date, or in the name of a particular place, 
person, or thing. 

But as my opponent has so perfectly failed to meet my argument; 
I shall have to give it to the public without much amplification or 
proof. I will, therefore, recapitulate, emphatically, a few of the 
grand land marks ; and 

1. The two tyrannies mentioned in Daniel and John, arose out of 
the great sea, the Mediterranean ; or, from among the nations border- 
ing thereon, in a state of tumult. Does not Rome stand on these wa- 
ters ; and is not Italy almost surrounded by them ] The Tiber itself, 
inconsiderable as it is,, is nevertheless, a part of this very sea. This 
beast came not from the deserts of Arabia ; nor from the Pacific, nor 
the Atlantic ; but from the Mediterranean. 

2. The origin or commencement of these two despotisms, or of the 
symbolic beasts of Daniel and John, exactly synchronize. They were 
contemporaries : indeed, they are identical. They both rise at the 
same time and place. 

3. They are co-existent, and continue the same time, 1260 years. 

4. The types, in both pictures, or the grand incidents and charac- 
teristics, are the same. 

5. Their latter end is the same. There is, indeed, no argument on 
this subject : it is as plain as history. My opponent will never debate 
it. -Paul occupies the "place of a commentator or interpretator, and 
without a figure explains the mystery of iniquity. He avers the im- 
possibility of the appearance of this i. *ter, this papal hierarchy, so 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 249 

long as pagan Rome, which then hindered a pope, should continue to 
hinder. All commentators understand, " he that lets," as referring to 
pagan Rome. We have already seen, that we could not find a pope 
before the time of Phocas the usurper, and Boniface III. No politico- 
ecclesiastic communion of nations, under a ghostly monarchy, ever 
stood on earth before that day. 

Paul speaks of the temple of God, as the residence of this mammoth 
antagonist power. It was not in a pure church he appeared, and, cer- 
tainly it was not among the pagan Arabs, that this man of idolatry (for 
such is the import of sin in this passage) showed his blasphemous face. 

I said not, that there was no church of God at Rome, before the pa- 
pacy. If there never had been a true church of God, at Rome ; the papacy, 
or the man of sin, never could have been born there. For, be it ob- 
served, emphatically, the man of sin is not a pagan, a Turk, a pro- 
fessed infidel ; but, an apostate Christian. 

Does not the pope of Rome, and none but the pope of Rome, fill up 
all the grand lineaments of this painting? He exalts himself above 
all that is called a god — a magistrate, a pagan god ; nay, above God 
himself: for no false God, nor the only living and true God, proposed 
to forgive sins before they were committed ! His name is covered 
with blasphemy. There never stood on earth such a monster; look- 
ing like a lamb, and speaking like a dragon. I need not, however, 
repeat what has not been contradicted. 

My argument is unanswered. I regret that it must go to the public, 
without being more fully tested. As to Lateinos, the gentleman may 
laugh at it ; but can he show state or empire, whose name like that of 
He Latine Basileia, will spell 666 1 If he cannot, this alone ought to 
check his opposition. 

My opponent did me great honor, in giving me such a colleague as 
Sir Isaac Newton, to bear half the brunt of his indignation. Greater 
literary and ecclesiastic names, than that of this great philosopher, and 
brighter stars in universal knowledge, adorn those prophetic heavens, 
and concentrate their light upon this map, which I have traced so hastily 
and imperfectly. What, if I should let the gentleman see a star of the 
first magnitude, or hear an archdeacon, in his own church, say a word 
on Babylon, and on the woman that sits on many waters ! 

" Who can there safely live, where not only wicked things are lawful, but all 
men are compelled by the severest punishments to believe, speak, and follow the 
most wicked and ungodly things; and to embrace them as things just and lauda- 
ble; where they do not only not receive sound doctrine, but bitterly persecute 
all those who do resist the madness of their wills ? * * * 

* What is it, think you, to be drunk with the cup of Babylon, but from 

long conversation with her to be so infected with the contagion of her, that, fol- 
lowing the erring herd, you willingly embrace false things for true; perverse for 
righteous, mad things for sound; and to desire rather to be mad with the multi- 
tude, than to be wise alone with danger and derision? He that is different in man- 
ners from them, ought not to live there, where the plague of corruption hath so 
prevailed as to infect all men with its contagion." Nicholaus de Clemaugis. 
Epist. p. 177. 

In his book of Simoniacal Prelates, he says, cap. 1. 
" The church is now become a shop of merchandize, or rather of robbery and 
rapine; in which all the sacraments are exposed to sale. * * And 

therefore, vou see such men admitted to the priesthood and other holy orders, 
who are idiots, unlearned, and scarce able to read, though waywardly, and with- 
out understanding one syllable after another, who know no more Latin, than 
they do Arabic, who, when they read, pray, or sing, know not, whether they 
bless God or blaspheme him — men undisciplined, unquiet, gluttons, drunkards, 

32 



250 DEBATE ON THE 

praters, vagabonds, lustful, bred up in luxury, and in one word, idle and ignorant." 

In his book of the corrupt state of the church, cap. 3. 

"That she was denied with the sink of all vices; and might be fitly called the 
church of Malignanis; that the saying of the prophet was now verified, that 
from the least of them to the greatest, every one was given to covetousness; that 
from the prophet to the priest, every one dealt falsely. * * * * 

Who preaches or declares the gospel? Who either by word or deed shews the 
way to life eternal'?" 

Again : 

44 What should I speak, (saith he) of the learning of the priests, when it is visible 
that scarce any of them can read? They know not words, and much less things: 
he of them that prayeth, is a barbarian to himself. If any man is idle and ab- 
hors labor, if he loves luxury, he gets now-a-days into the clergy, and then 
presently he joins himself to the rest of the priests that are voluptuous, and live 
according to Epicurus, rather than according to the laws of Christ. Cap. 25. 

" Such (saith he) is the abundance of wicked men in all professions, that there 
is scarcely one among a thousand, who sincerely doth what his profession doth 
require; if there be any sincere, chaste, sober, frugal person, in any college or 
convent, who doth not walk in the broad way, he is made a ridiculous fable to the 
rest, and is continually called insolent, mad, and hypocritical fellow; so that 
many who would have been good, had they lived with good and honest men, 
are drawn by wicked company into their vices, lest they should suffer the fore- 
mentioned reproaches among their companions." Cap. 26. 

He then concludes with an apostrophe to the Roman church, as 
follows : 

"What thinkest thou of thine own prophecy, the Revelations of St. John? 
Dost thou not think they do at least, in part, belong to thee? Thou hast not 
surely so wholly lost all sname as to deny this; look, therefore, into it, and read 
the damnation of this great whore, sitting upon many waters, and then contemplate 
thy famous facts and future ruin." Declarat. Defect. Virorum Eccl.* 

So testifies Nicolaus de Clemaugis, an archdeacon of the church of 
Rome, in the fifteenth century. 

Not only have the sins of Sodom and Egypt been multiplied in this 
Babylon the great, but she had superadded to these the blood-guilti- 
ness and cruelty of Jerusalem. Persecution is of the very essence 
and spirit of the supremacy, not merely as the martyred millions of 
Protestants, of every age, declare ; but according to the doctrine of the 
church, and the oaths of her bishops. Every Roman Catholic bishop 
is sworn to persecute heretics and schismatics : even this very gentle- 
man has sworn to persecute and oppose heretics and schismatics to the utmost 
of his power. This is no mere allegation. I will hereafter produce 
the oath, and if it can be otherwise explained, I shall give him an op- 
portunity to do it. Till then, I proceed to allege, further, that learned 
Roman Catholics have tremblingly interpreted these prophecies, as 
belonging to Rome papal. I have another witness here, in confirma- 
tion of my speech, and with his testimony I shall close these remarks, 
and proceed. 

" Whence is it that this happened? to wit, because all flesh had corrupted its 
ways, we were all citizens and inhabitants not of the holy city Rome, that 
wicked city; of which that of the prophet Isaiah is fulfilled, "How is the faithful 
city become a harlot." Let no man think this prophecy has been fulfilled already 
in the destruction of Babylon, or Jerusalem. No! future things were present to 
the prophet's eye, and this the prophet hath declared to us, saying, "the daugh- 
ter of Zion shall be left desolate, as in the wasting of the enemy. St. John 
doth in the Revelations tell us, the daughter of Zion is not Jerusalem, but Rome; 
and his description of her makes it plain: For the woman which thou sawest 
(saith he) is that great city which hath dominion over the kings of the earth, 
that is spiritual dominion. She sits, saith he, upon seven hills, which properly 
agrees to Rome, which upon this account, is styled septicolis. She is full, saith 
he, of the names of blasphemy— she is the mother of uncleanness, fornications, 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 251 

and abominations.which are in the earth; than which words, no more particular 
demonstration of the city can be requisite, seeing these iniquities do almost gen- 
erally reign, yet here they have their seat and empire." Orat. habit, ad auditores 
Rotar. Mail 15, A. D. 

My friend is again on celibacy. But, really, I cannot return to 
these matters as often as he chooses to explain away, or deny, or 
otherwise dispose of, his own sayings and concessions. In this mat- 
ter, as in a hundred others, it might suffice to show, that he differs 
from both Peter and Paul, and all the other apostles. For, as an 
apostle of Christ, Paul says of himself and Barnabas, that they had a 
right to have wives, " sister-wives" as well as the other apostles. In 
this way Paul proves the point : " Have we not power to lead about 
with us a wife, as the other apostles have 1 Or, are Barnabas and my- 
self debarred this privilege]" Such is the spirit and point of that 
passage ; and excepting in time of public calamity, as Paul elsewhere 
teaches, " Let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own 
husband." So we teach. 

The bishop owes an apology for speaking on a subject, which I 
did not introduce for discussion. The whole merits of auricular con- 
fession is not the question ; but the simple fact, that it is a tenet of the 
party, growing out of a human rule of divine faith. I introduced it, to 
be admitted or denied ; not now to be debated. The same is true of 
transubstantiation. I introduced these institutions, as proof of the im- 
moral nature and tendency of the Romanist rule of faith. I think it 
almost enough to have these doctrines or institutions acknowledged in 
this age and country, to prove that Roman Catholicism is not suscep- 
tible of reformation ; and would be the same in this community as in 
Spain, Italy, or Portugal, under similar circumstances. My friend 
had the opportunity of a simple denial of these items at the moment, 
if they were not parts of his system ; and he may have the full dis- 
cussion of them again. 

On the subject of confession, one word as to the quotations from 
Episcopalians and Methodists. Would the gentleman wish you to 
understand, that auricular confession is an ordinance of those religious 
communities, as taught and practised in her church '? If he does not, 
where is the relevancy of these quotations 1 If he does, where is the 
truth and candor] " Confess your faults to one another," will justify 
any two or more persons mutually to confess to each other, and to pray 
for one another ,• but will he affirm, that Methodists and Episcopalians 
say to one another, " I absolve thee," at their mutual confessions ? ! 
Why, then, I ask, seek to make Episcopalians and Methodists bear a 
part of the shame of these unscriptural and sinful practices 1 They 
disavow them : they would say to the bishop, confess your faults to 
us, and we will confess to you ; but on no other condition. We may 
pray for you ; we cannot forgive you. You may pray for us ; but you 
cannot forgive us. I must, on this point, read you another extract 
from Smith's S}niopsis of the works of Ligori, that you may see what 
justice my opponent renders to Episcopalians and Methodists, in his 
alliancing them with himself on the subject of confession : 

" The saint continues thus: St. Philip JVeiius used to tell his penitents, that 
they who desire to progress in the way of God should submit themselves to a 
lear/iedcorfssor, whom they should obey as God. [Is this Methodism?] He who 
thus acts will be secure from having to render an account of any of his actions. 
A. confessor must be believed, because God will not suffer him to err. Nothing 
is safer than to follow the will of one's director, and nothing is more dangerous 



252 DEBATE ON THE 

than to be directed by one's own judgment. [Is this Episcopalianism?] "If,'* 
continues Ligori, quoting from Glossa, ** a commandment be doubtful, he who 
acts in obedience to his confessor is excused from sin, although in truth, what 
he does is sinful." [Is this Methodism?] Quoting from St. Dionysius, he has 
the following: " If there be a doubt whether what one is about to do is against 
the commandment of God, we must obey the commandment of our prelate ," 
(bishop, priest or confessor,) " because, although what we do be against God, 
nevertheless, on account of the virtue of obedience, we being subject to our 
prelates do not sin." [Is this Episcopalianism?] — Id. ib. 

" Let the confessor," continues the saint, "strenuously insist upon the peni- 
tent's obeying him, and if he refuses to obey, let him be sharply rebuked, be 
deprived of communion, and let his obduracy be blunted as much as possible." — 
Id. ib. N. 16. [Time expired.] 

Twelve o'clock, M. 
Bis hop Purcell rises — 

It was not heaven's holy oracles, but man's presumptuous freedom 
with the word of God, that I ridiculed. It was my friend who ex- 
posed the holy record to contempt ; and afforded to infidels occasion 
for triumph and insult, by forcing upon it his own preposterous inter- 
pretations, and making it- say what its divine Author never intended it 
to say. I tell him again, in the very words of that sacred book, that 
"no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation ,•" that these 
blind who are " leaders of the blind" and that "both fall into the pit:" 
Matthew xv. 14. that, as Peter says, there are many things in the scrip- 
tures which my friend says are so very plain, hard to be understood, which 
the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures to 
their own destruction : 2d Peter, ch. iii. v. 16 ; finally, that "as there 
were false prophets among the people, even so shall there be lying 
teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who 
bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction, and many shall 
follow their riotousness, through whom the way of truth shall be evil 
spoken of." Having exposed the scriptures, our learned friend gave 
us a smart lesson in geography and chronology, proving, at least, one 
point to my satisfaction, if not to his own, that we may err in a date, 
place, person, or thing, the which he veritably hath done in his sym- 
bolical dissertation. I may, but I will not, apply to him the figure of 
Isaiah, "he has broken the eggs of asps, and may eat them; he hath 
woven the spider's web, and may clothe himself with the filmy tex- 
ture." Isaiah lix. 5. The fragile egg and filmy texture are proper 
emblems of fickleness, inconstancy, and change of religion ; but in 
ours there is neither mutability nor "shadow of vicissitude." 

My friend has taken us a fishing again ; the sea monster has dis- 
colored the waters, and like the wolf and lamb in the fable, he charges 
upon me the troubling of the stream. There is no escape for the 
gentleman, " I absolve thee" are the very words of the Episcopalian 
ritual in England ; and private and particular confession is practised 
by the Methodists in the United States. Even he, himself, admits 
that the words " confess your sins to one another," will justify 
(St. James and christians, ought to be much obliged to him,) 
any two, or more, to confess to one another ! What, then, does he 
mean by denying and admitting, rejecting and adopting, every creed 
and practice alternately 1 He blows hot and cold with the same 
breath. St. Philip Nerius gave wise directions on the decalogue, 
and shewed that God, himself, could not authorize a violation of his 
own laws, much less a confessor. Hence his advice — " obey your 

1 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 253 

confessor as God," was perfectly intelligible. I wish my friend would 
study the saint's life, and he would find in it maxims and examples 
well worthy of imitation, and nothing that could scandalize him. 

My argument upon the subject of confession was perfectly pertinent ; 
and the gentleman felt it — hinc illse lachrymae, — hence his charge of 
irrelevancy. It was elaborately argued by him, that the practice was 
immoral, and it behoved me to vindicate it, as I have done, by prov- 
ing that it was authorized and commanded by scripture, practised by 
the early church in its purity, and advocated by two of the most nu- 
merous and respectable sects, viz. Episcopalians and Methodists. 
Now, if my friend says, that persons in those communions never go 
to confession, according to the discipline and ritual, it only proves 
their inconsistency. Priests and bishops do confess, and that fre- 
quently. The more pious and sincere they are, the more faithfully 
do they comply with the salutary ordinance. 

We do not dissuade young people from marrying, we only regret 
that those who are called to that state, do not marry faster. What is 
the object of all that tirade of abusive extracts against the Catholic 
church'? Must I have to read dissertations to my opponent on all the 
humbugs, which his criticism has not been long enough at school to 
detect? The book " Be Corrupto Eccksias Statu," was not written by 
its putative author Nicolaus de Clamangis, who was secretary to the 
anti-pope Benedict XIII. John De Chelm, James De Cleur, and John 
of Bavaria, have had respectively the honor of a production of which, 
its real author had reason to be ashamed. I wish my friend would spare 
me the necessity of such frequent exposure of his I won't say it. 

Here are the complete works of Liguori, in eight volumes, with an 
index consisting of one volume. I have performed a work of supere- 
rogation. I have examined these volumes, from cover to cover, and 
in none of them can so much as a shadow be found for the infamous 
charge. I exonerate my friend from the sin of wilful misrepresenta- 
tion, I will say he has been deceived, misled by — anti-christ, perhaps, 
who can deceive the elect, if possible, that is to say, if Fll let him, 
which I have, in this instance, no notion of doing. The original tells 
the truth. The translation lies. My friends, I hope that the same 
audience, which is here now, will be here this evening, and I pledge 
myself, before the heavens and the earth, that this base slander is 
what I call it. There is no foundation for it whatever in the works 
of Liguori. On the contrary, in the place indicated, the severest 
punishment, known to church discipline, is pronounced against the 
ecclesiastic who violates the holy law ; " Thou shalt perform unto the 
Lord thine oath." Numbers xxx. 2 and seq. 

I know of no better vindication of Catholic doctrines and practices, 
than their simple and faithful announcement. It is the misrepresen- 
tation of our tenets that did us injury for times and a time and half a 
time; but now the light from heaven is breaking. " Thou hast ap- 
pointed darkness, and it is night, in it shall all the beasts of the earth 
go about, — the sun riseth — and they shall lie down in their dens." 
Ps. ciii. 20, 22. 

My learned opponent says the Tiber runs into the Mediterranean. 
That is a fact, and so do the waters of a thousand other streams. He 
says that I did not prove that there was a head of the church in Rome 
before Constantine's time. This I may simply deny; but have I not 
quoted the testimony of general councils, of the fathers, of numberless 



254 DEBATE ON THE 

appeals to Rome, of Pagans, historians and emperors, to prove that, 
now incontestible, fact? I refer to Eusebius, and add one remark that 
Eusebius was born in 270. His history extends to the year 324, the 
epoch when Constantine was sole master of the Roman empire. Eu- 
sebius narrated the belief of the whole church during the preceding 
two hundred years, for no longer period had elapsed since the death of 
St. John — and Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Caius, a Roman priest, 
and Hegesippus, the ecclesiastical historian, lived in that interval. 
Read Eusebius. My friend has now allowed that, for a long time, the 
church of Rome was pure. This is true; but when will he fulfil his 
promise at the opening of the debate and inform us, at last, from what 
church she is an apostacy 1 We are coming near the end of the dis- 
cussion and this is too important a point to be forgotten. 

" The church formerly used the vernacular language." So she did. 
And there was a very good reason for it. The Latin then was the ver- 
nacular of the greatest part of the civilized world, in consequence of 
the Roman conquests. It was generally known, where other lan- 
guages continued to be the vernacular. St. Paul wrote to the Romans 
in Greek, a language which all the Romans did not understand. My 
friend Mr. Campbell has stated the very best reasons, in the preface to 
his new Testament, for the adoption of a uniform language as the ve- 
hicle of revelation. The learned Southey agrees, if not with him, at 
least, with the Catholic church on the subject of its peculiar fitness to 
be the language of the Christian Liturgy. 

44 Latin," says Southey, Vol. I. p. 59, "was made the language of religion; there 
had been the same reason for this in Italy, and Spain, and France, as for making 
it the language of the laws; and in England also, there was reason, which, 
though different, was not less valid. A common language was necessary for 
the clergy, who considered themselves as belonging, less to the country, 
in which they happened, individually to have been born, or stationed, than to 
their order, or to Christendom, for in these ages Christendom was regardedas 
something more than a mere name. No modern language was as yet fix- 
ed, or reduced to rules or regarded as a written tongue; of necessity, therefore, 
Latin, in which the western clergy read the scriptures, and in which the fathers 
of the western church had composed their works, and the councils had issued 
their decrees, was every where retained as the natural and professional lan- 
guage of the ministers of religion. They preached and catechized, and confer- 
red in the common speech of the country, and that the church service was not ver- 
bally intelligible to the congregation was, upon their principles, no inconvenience. 

But if, in this respect, there was no real disadvantage in the use of a foreign 
tongue; in other respects many and most important advantages arose from it. 
The clergy became of necessity a learned body; and to their humble and pa- 
tient labors we owe the whole history of the middle ages, and the preservation 
of those works of antiquity, which, for the instruction of all after ag-es, have been 
preserved : The students at Canterbury in Bede's time, were as well skilled, both 
in Latin and Greek as in their native speech; and Bede, himself (worthy to be 
called venerable, if ever that epithet was worthily applied) had acquired all that 
could possibly be leartied from books, and, was master of what was then, the 
whole circle of human knowledge." 

The people have the substance, frequently the literal translation, in 
their prayer books, of what the Priest reads, during the sacrifice, in 
the ancient language of Catholic Europe. They know as well as the 
priest, himself, does, to what they answer, ' Amen.' When a foreigner 
from any of the countries where Greek is not the vernacular comes in- 
to our churches, and I need scarcely except even the Catholics, of the 
Greek rite, he is perfectly at home, among his brethren in faith and 
worship. Their ceremonies and prayers are the same as in his native 
land — Germans, French, English, Irish, Poles, Swiss, Italians, Por- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 255 

tuguese, like the Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven, we 
hear our priests, as they did the apostles, speaking in a tongue which 
we well may call our own, " the wonderful works of God." The ser- 
mons of our church are not preached in Latin, but in as plain English 
as we can find in common use. 

I have answered all I could note of the gentleman's remarks. I have 
only two of my own to add at present. It is in reference to the asser- 
tion of my learned opponent that monsters are always emblematical 
of bad men or tyrants. Now what will my friend say of Ezekiel 1st 
ch. " And I saw — and behold a whirlwind came out of the north 
and a great cloud, and a fire infolding it, and brightness was about it; 
and out of the midst thereof, that is, out of the midst of the fire, as it 
were the resemblance of Amber, and in the midst thereof the likeness 
of four living creatures : and this was their appearance : there was the 
likeness of a man in them. Every one had four faces, and every one 
four wings. Their feet were straight feet, and the sole of their foot 
was like the sole of a calFs foot ; and they sparkled like the appear- 
ance of glowing brass. And they had the hands of a man, under their 
wings, on their four sides : and they had faces, and wings on their 
sides. And I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of many 
waters, as it were the voice of the most high God ; — This was the 
vision of the likeness of the glory of the Lord." What will my friend 
now say of his monster theory 1 ? These animals are taken to have 
been figures of the four Evangelists, — or of all the Apostles. 

My second remark is, that whoever has read Humes' or Lingard's 
history of England, knows that the Ana-baptists when driven by arm- 
ed soldiers out of the Parliament House, found in the famous Oliver 
Cromwell, a perfect fac-simile of the Anti-Christ. — [Time expired.] 

Three o'clock^ P. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

There was one remark made by my opponent, in his last speech, 
and only one that had some appropriate reference to my remarks on 
symbols. Upon this remark, I will make one affirmation. Whatever 
else he has been pleased to say, may pass for what it is worth, tax free. 

The gentleman asserts, that beasts of prey are not always sym- 
bolical of tyrants. Had I asserted that proposition, it would have 
been in point to have made such a remark : but unfortunately for him, 
that was not my proposition. It was, that when God depicts a tyran- 
ny, he selects some monster, or some savage wild beast to symbolize 
it. But is that identical with — " beasts of prey in symbolic language 
only represent tyrants ?" Or follows it from my proposition, that a lion 
or an eagle must always and uniformly represent a tyrant ? — I went far- 
ther and said, that some savage wild beast — some monster was God's 
image of a secular or ecclesiastic despotism. This was my explanation. 

It is *rue that a " lion," as well as a " lamb" is applied to the Sa- 
vior. He is the " Lion of the tribe of Judan :" but Daniel's lion had 
wings, and came from the sea. It was a monster. 

The Roman spirit, in other words, the savage spirit of pagan and 
papal Rome, has been imparted even to Protestant states. In so much 
that England has for her symbol, or national device, a tawny lion; 
and her sons have chosen their own eagle, a ravenous bird of prey, 
for their device, that they may pounce upon their mother's lion and 
show themselves as full of war and stratagem and spoils, as the bar- 



255 DEBATE ON THE 

barous and uncivilized nations of the old pagan world. — Although I 
prefer the American Eagle to the British Lion, I would rather fight 
the battles of my king, under the device of a milk white dove, on an 
azure flag, as more consonant to the genius of the Reign of heaven. 
War, however, is wholly barbarous. Nations at war, are at best but 
partly civilized, and, therefore, they generally choose beasts of prey 
for their insignia. When we become more rational, more civilized, 
and more christian, we will find some other way of settling our na- 
tional disputes, than with the sword, and with the confused noise of 
the warrior, and garments baptized in blood. 

The gentleman asked, the other day, (and I know not whether 
in the crowd of curious and impertinent matters introduced, I paid 
any attention to it) — if God could make twelve men infallible, could 
he not make as many more infallible as he pleased ; and continue 
them through all succeeding time?! Certainly he could, I answer: 
but there is no philosophy in this question. I might retort, could not 
God have made fourteen instead of seven primary planets ] and as 
many satellites as he pleased 1 And the same answer would equally 
suit both questions. We therefore answer by saying, that neither 
the system of nature, nor the system of religion needs them. The 
inspired twelve made a full revelation of christian truth. They taught 
the whole religion : We need nothing more. If a full and explicit 
development, is once made, and carefully preserved ; ten thousand 
apostles could not perfect the christian system, by adding a new idea. 

My friend gave me a challenge the other day : I think I have ac- 
cepted it : he now adds from some new source, or repeats, I know 
not which, " If the testimony of tradition be not infallible how can 
you know the Bible to be inspired ?" This, together with his repeated 
assertion that Protestants believe in the bible on the same testimony 
he offers for the succession of Peter, &c; I reserved for my sixth pro- 
position, which, because of the advanced state of the discussion, as 
respects time, is likely to be crowded into a corner, I therefore beg 
permission to introduce it at this time. 

" Frcp. VI. Notwithstanding; her pretensions to have given us the Bible, and 
faith in it, we are perfectly independent of her for our knowledge of that book, 
and its evidences of a divine original; 

The Roman Catholic says, as the bishop has himself averred, " I 
believe in the Holy Catholic church :" but this phrase needs a general 
council to explain it. Does it mean, I believe the Catholic church ; 
or, I believe in the Catholic church ] Do they confide in it for salva- 
tion, or onty believe what it believes ; and because it believes it 1 It is 
ambiguous. The " fides carbonaria" is thus expressed : " I believe 
what the church believes ; and the church believes what I believe ; 
and we both believe the same thing." Or, as repeated the other 
day, the Reman Catholic believes the bible on the authority of the 
church, and the church on the authority of the bible ! But the Chris- 
tian is commanded and expected to be always ready to give a reason 
fcr the faith that is in him. God is reason ; and every communica- 
tion from him is rational ; and as man is a reasonable being, he must 
have good reasons to offer for his believing the christian religion. 
W T hen you ask a Roman Catholic the reason of his faith, what does 
he answer 1 His father told him that the Roman Catholic was the 
true church. The same reason would justify any one for being a 
Jew, a Turk, or an infidel. He that is of the order of Ali or Omar, 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION*. 25? 

has then, as good a reason to give for his faith in the Koran, as any 
Romanist has to give for his faith in the bible, if his answer to the 
question, * why do you believe ?' is, Because my father, or the mosque, 
or the church told me it was so. I would, indeed, be gratified to learn 
from my opponent, Dr. Purcell, why he would not have had as good 
reason for believing in the Koran, as he has for being a Roman Ca- 
tholic, on the ground of mere tradition, had he happened to have been 
born in Turkey 1 There must be an examination of the testimony, 
and perception of its truth, on its own intrinsic excellence; or, a con- 
viction of its truth upon the evidence which it affords ; else there is no 
reason in faith — it is mere credulity, or superstition. 

The first, and characteristic difference, between the Protestant and 
the Roman Catholic, is this : the former believes the scriptures first, 
and the church afterwards ; whereas, the latter believes the church 
first, and the scriptures afterwards. " But," says the bishop, "where 
does the Protestant get the bible to believe, but through the church ?" 
And that first brings us to the proposition. 

If any person hand me a book, and I read it, and believe it, does my 
faith in it necessarily rest upon him who hands it to me] And, yet, 
this is the gigantic strength of all that my opponent can say on this 
subject. It would be much more plausible, that the Protestants are 
indebted exclusively to the Roman Catholic church for the book, if 
Protestants believed all the Roman Catholic traditions, as well as the 
bible : but, while we reject the apocrypha, and the traditions of popery, 
and receive the bible only, this fact will answer a thousand volumes of 
sophistry, in proof that our faith in the bible, rests not upon the author- 
ity of the church of Rome. The fact, that we reject her apocryphal 
bible and testament, with all other traditions of Roman Catholics, an* 
cient and modern, resting solely upon her authority, and that we re- 
tain the bible, (one version of which she has,) is incontestable proof, 
that we receive the bible on other authority than her traditions. Dis- 
pose of this fact who may, I affirm that my opponent never can ! This 
illustrious and indisputable fact, plaees in bold relief the irrelevancy 
of his effort to show, that our faith in the bible, and his belief in Pe- 
ter's Roman diocese, or in his being bishop of Rome, rest upon the 
same authority. That I must believe a letter on the authority of him 
who carries it, or a book on the authority of him who puts it in my 
hand, is another of the assumptions of the church of encroachments, 
resting upon Peter's having been bishop of Rome. 

God created both the sun and the human eye, and he has adapted 
them to each other. He created the human understanding and the 
bible, and adapted them to each other. The honest student of nature 
needs no tradition to prove that man made not the sun ; neither does 
the humble and candid student of the bible, need any witness from the 
bishops or church of Rome, that they did not make the bible. She is, in- 
deed, a witness for the bible, and the true church, somewhere else ex* 
isting than in her own communion : for, had it not been for her rivals, 
who, like Argus, have ever watched the sacred text, how it would 
have been interpolated and corrupted, her editions of the primitive fa- 
thers, and other books of which she was the sole or chief depository, 
abundantly declare. But, having fixed the date, not merely of the first 
pope, but of the grand schism which originated the Roman Catholic 
church, I hasten, with all despatch, to show that we have copies of the 
vv 2 33 



258 DEBATE ON THE 

bible more ancient than the grand schism, more ancient than the first 
pope: nay, that were written before the question of a supreme head 
began to be discussed ; and which copies, in the form of transcription, 
have never been soiled by the fingers of a monk. I read but a few 
documents, as I have but little time for this subject; but I read them 
from a source of biblical authority, which, on these points, has not 
been, and, I presume, will not be, disputed ; " Home's Introduction: 
44 Of the few manuscripts known to be extant, which contain the Greek Scrip- 
tures (that is, the Old Testament, according to the Septuagint version, and the 
New Testament) there are two which pre-eminently demand the attention of 
the Biblical student for their antiquity and intrinsic value, viz. The Alexandrian 
manuscript, which is preserved in the British museum, and the Vatican manuscript 
deposited in the library of the Vatican Palace at Rome. 

I. The Codex Alexandrinus, or Alexandrian manuscripts, which is noted by 
the letter A in Wetstein's and Griesbach's critical editions of the New Testa- 
ment, consists of four folio volumes; the three first contain the whole of the Old 
Testament, together with the Apocryphal books, and the fourth comprises the 
New Testament, the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the Apoc- 
ryphal psalms ascribed to Solomon. In the New Testament there is wanting the 
beginning as far as Matth. xxv. 6. ° wpcpiog sp%£T«*; likewise from John vi. 50. to 
viii. 52. and from the 2 Cor. iv. 13. to xii. 7. [This manuscript is now preserved 
in the British museum, w 7 here it was deposited in 1753. It was sent as a present to 
king Charles I. from Cyrillus Lucaris, a native of Crete, and patriarch of Con- 
stantinople, by Sir Thomas Rowe, ambassador from England to the Grand Seign- 
ior, in the year 1628. Cyrillus brought it with him from Alexandria, where, 
probably, it was written. In a schedule annexed' to it, he gives this account; 
that it was written, as tradition informed them, by Thecla, a noble Egyptian 
lady, about thirteen hundred years ago, a little after the council of Nice. He 
adds that the name of Thecla at the end of the book was erased; but that this 
was the case with other books of the christians, after Christianity was extin- 
guished in Egypt by the Mohammedans: and that recent tradition records the fact 
of the laceration and erasure of Thecla's name. The proprietor of this manuscript, 
before it came into the hands of Cyrillus Lucaris, had written an Arabic sub- 
scription, expressing that this book was said to have been written with the pen 
of Thecla the martyr." [Introduction to the critical study and knowledge of 
the Holy Scrintures, by Thomas Hartwell Home. Vol. II. pp. 66, 67. 

But, this is not the only ante-papistical manuscript of the scripture, 
now extant. 

II. "The Codex Vaticanus, No. 1209, which Wetstein and Griesbach 
have both noted with the letter B, contests the palm of antiquity with the Alex- 
andrian manuscript. No fac-simile of it has ever been published. The Roman 
edition of the Septuagint, printed in 1590, professes to exhibit the text of this 
manuscript; and in the preface to that edition it is stated to have been written 
before the year 337, i. e. towards the close of the 4th century: Montfaucon 
and Blanchini refer it to the 5th or 6th century, and Du Pin to the 7th cen- 
tury. Professor Hug has endeavored to shew that it was written in the early 
part of the fourth century; but, from the omission of the Eusebian m^^'m and 
T<rx.o«, Bishop Marsh concludes with great probability, that it was written be- 
fore the close of the fifth century. The Vatican manuscript is written on parch- 
ment or vellum in uncial or capital letters, in three columns on each page, all of 
which are of the same size, except at the beginning of a book, and without any 
divisions of chapters, verses, or words, but with accents and spirits. The shape 
of the letters, and color of the ink, prove that it was written throughout by one 
and the same careful copyist." Id. ib. p. 74. 

There are also versions older than the papacy, older than the vul- 
gate, which is itself evidently older than the church of Rome. 

" Syria being visited at a very early period by the preachers of the christian 
faith, several translations of the sacred volume were made into the language of 
that country. The most celebrated of these is the Peschito or Literal (Versio 
Simplex,) as it is usually called, on account of its very close adherence to the 
Hebrew text, from whicn it was immediately made. The most extravagant as- 
sertions have been advanced concerning its antiquity, some referring it to tho 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 259 

time of Solomon and Hiram, while others ascribe it to Asa, the priest of Sama- 
ritans, and a third class, to the apostle Thaddeus. This last tradition is receiv- 
ed by the Syrian churches; but a more recent date is ascribed to it by modern 
biblical philologers. Bishop Walton, Carpzov, Leusden, Bishop Lowth, and 
Dr. Kennicott, fix its date to the first century; Bauer, and some other German 
critics, to the second or third century: Jahn fixes it at the latest, to the second 
century; De Rossi pronounces it to be very ancient, but does not specify any 
precise date. The most probable opinion is that of Michaelis, who ascribes it to 
the close of the first or to the earlier part of the second century, at which time 
the Syrian churches flourished most, and the christians at Edessa had a temple 
for divine worship erected after the model of that at Jerusalem: and it is not to 
be supposed that they would be without a version of the old Testament, the 
reading- of which had been introduced by the apostles." Id. ib. pp. 187, 188. 

" An important accession to biblical literature was made a few years since, by 
the late learned and excellent Dr. Buchannon, to whose assiduous labors the 
British church in India is most deeply indebted: and who, in his progress 
among- the Lyna churches and Jews of India, discovered and obtained nume 
rous ancient manuscripts of the scriptures, which are now deposited in the pub- 
lic library at Cambridge. One of these, which was discovered in a remote Syri- 
an church near the mountains, is particularly valuable: it contains the old and 
new Testaments, engrossed with beautiful accuracy in the Estrang-eh (or old 
Syriac,) character, on strong vellum, in large folio, and having- three columns in 
a page. The words of every book are numbered: and the volume illuminated, 
but not after the European manner, the initial letters having- no ornament. 
Though somewhat injured by time or neglect, the ink being- in certain places 
obliterated, still the letters can, in general, be distinctly traced from the im- 
press of the pen, or from the partial corosion of the ink. The Syrian church as- 
signs a high date to this manuscript, which in the opinion of Mr. Yeates, who 
has published a collation of the Pentateuch, was written about the seventh 
century. In looking over this manuscript, Dr. Buchannan found the very first 
emendation of the Hebrew text proposed by Dr. Kennicut, which doubtless is 
the true reading. Id. ib. p. 189. 

Now, if we of the west of Europe, did receive the bible first from 
our Roman Catholic ancestors, I ask, would that make us dependent 
on their traditions alone for that book ; any more than A. B., who 
lived on one of the seven mouths of the Nile, from which he supplies 
himself with water, was, on that account, absolutely dependent on the 
branch nearest his dwelling. Tell him that he is absolutely and alone 
dependent on it for water ; and he will say, " No ; but it is more con- 
venient to supply myself from this stream : there are six other branch- 
es, from which I could supply myself, were it, necessary for my life or 
comfort." So say we. We have Jews, Greeks, Armenians, and Pro- 
testants, from the first schism, A. D. 250, down to the present day ; 
to say nothing of the ancient sceptics, Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, and 
others ; and the ancient heretics, from whose writings, together with 
those of the infidel pagans, we could almost compile a New Testa- 
ment, containing every thing read, not only since, but before the coun- 
cil of Laodieea. Du Pin himself acknowledges, that before that coun- 
cil, even in the third century, the scriptures w T ere read as they are now. 
But, as for our independence of all Roman Catholic tradition, on this 
subject, many other proofs may be offered. The notorious and glorious 
faet, however, that Protestants have rejected the Roman Catholic rule 
of faith, apocrypha, traditions, and all, and even her own vulgate, as 
authentic, will for ever frown out of countenance, the groundless im- 
putations of my too credulous opponent. [Time expired.] 

Half past 3 o'clock, P. M. 
Bishop Purcei.l rises — 

My friends, have you ever seen the Anti-Christ 1 Look at him now 
(holding up a bock.) This morning, I endeavored to shew that -Ma- 



260 DEBATE ON THE 

hommed was the fittest beast, to illustrate the mysterious prophecy; 
and I stated that many names (fourteen) could be found to correspond 
with the numbers 666. I now distinctly shew the page and book, 
where the computation is made and the last of these names is that of 
God himself. Cerdenus, a Greek writer, testifies thit the name of 
Mahommed, as it was written in his time, will exactly spell the beast. 
On this subject, the reader who is riot content with the article, Anti- 
Christ, in Robinson's Calmet, may refer to Walmesley's General His- 
tory of the Christian church, p. 250. 

I do not give my own theory of the matter. There have been too 
many theorists already, to need more. I believe the beast was neither 
Luther, nor Mahommed, nor the pope. This is not an article of lakh 
with me, nor with any Catholic. I respect the prophecy, but I await 
to decide the questions until 4 Revelations' be what the term imports. 
I have here a history of the popes, in French, published, as the title 
page says " at the expense of the holy Father." Of course it is to be 
understood to be a hoax, and it deserves to be so considered. It tells 
a heap of lies about him ; among others he was to be destroyed for ever 
in 1745. We may then write his epitaph. 

I do not know on what grounds my friend asserted yesterday, that 
the 2nd. commandment was not a part of the Catholic rule of morals. 
I have already exhibited various catechisms, in use in the United 
States, in all of which, every word of the commandments is found. I 
suppose my friend overlooked the fact. I was glad to hear the gentle- 
man speak so highly of Michaelis. It showed his literary knowledge ; 
and perhaps he may be interested in knowing that when but one edi- 
tion of his works could be obtained in Paris, in 1824, I procured it. 
Here it happens by a singular coincidence, unknown to him, to be. I 
invite him to examine in it the commandments, and he will find them 
fully and faithfully rendered in every Catholic Bible and Testament. 
Will my friend tell the audience when the mazoretic points, without 
which the understanding of the Bible, if not impossible, is very diffi- 
cult, were first introduced 1 and by whom ! 

Do all Bible readers know, as they ought to know, that in the old 
Hebrew Bible, there is no division of verses, much less of chapters'? 
That a Roman Catholic cardinal had a good deal to do in making the 
division — and that they were not Protestants, but Rabbis, who suffixed 
the points which serve instead of vowels to Hebrew words, which 
have none but consonants alone ; accordingly, as these vowels are 
placed, the Hebrew root may signify whatever the pointer pleases ? 
The context of the oldest known meaning must be the only criterion. 
But I should like to know how one of our good, plain, homebred and 
industrious citizens can accomplish this task for himself. Even learn- 
ed men made themselves ridiculous by their mazoretic fixtures and 
translations, and Luther, who was a good Catholic scholar — laughing 
at the absurdity of their versions of passages in the Bible — observed 
that "In the beginning the cuckoo ate the sparrow and the feathers," 
would be just as good a translation of the first line of Genesis, as some 
of theirs. I will return to this subject. 

It appears that Birds and Beasts of prey may represent peace, as 
well as cruelty. England then suffers no disparagement from her 
Lion, nor the United States, from her Eagle. The gentleman sug- 
gests a dove for the latter. I have not the slightest objection, and if 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 261 

the criticism I have heard be correct, the bird lately stamped on the new 
American coin resembles a chicken, more than a bird of prey. It looks 
as if it were more to be preyed upon than preying, and more sinned 
against than sinning. 

Before I come to the very important point of the Bible, I must not 
forget to quote the testimony of the eloquent Southey, to shew what 
anti-Christs the popes were, and how they displayed their anti-christ- 
ian spirit, in the conversion of Old England. 

" That Gregory, who was afterwards raised to the popedom, and is distin- 
guished from succeeding popes of the same name (one alone excepted,) by 
the rank of saint, and from him, by the appellation of the Great, was one day 
led into the market-place at Rome, with a great concourse of persons, to look 
at a large importation of foreign merchandise, which had just arrived. Among 
other articles, there were some boys exposed for sale like cattle. There was 
nothing remarkable in this, for it was the custom every where in that age, and 
had been so from time immemorial: but he was struck by the appearance of the 
boys, their fine clear skins, the beauty of their flaxen or golden hair, and their 
ingenuous countenances; so that he asked from what country they came; and 
when he was told from the island of Britain, where the inhabitants in general 
were of that complexion and comeliness, he inquired if the people were chris- 
tians, and sighed for compassion at hearing that they were in a state of Pagan 
darkness. ..... From that day the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons became a 

favorite object with Gregory. .". Accordingly he despatched thither 

forty missionaries from a monastery, which he had founded at Rome 

When, therefore, Augustine (who was their chief) and his companions landed 
in the isle of Thanet, they came not as obscure men, unprotected and unaccred- 
ited ; but with recommendations from the kings of France, and as messengers 
from a potentate, whose spiritual authority was acknowledged and obeyed 
throughout that part of the world, to which the northern nations w T ere accus- 
tomed to look as the seat of empire and superior civilization. They made their 
arrival known to Ethelbert, and requested an audience. They approached in 
procession, bearing a silver crucifix, and a portrait of our Savior, upon a ban- 
ner adorned with gold, and chaunting the litany. The king welcomed them cour- 
teously, and ordered them to be seated: after which, Augustine stood up, and, 
through an interpreter, whom he had brought from France, delivered the pur- 
port of his mission, in a brief, but well ordered and impressive discourse. He 
was come to the king, and to that kingdom, he said, for their eternal good, a 
messenger of good tidings; offering to their acceptance perpetual happiness, 
here and hereafter, if they would accept his words. The Creator and Redeemer 
had opened the kingdom of heaven to the human race: for God so loved the 
world that he had sent into it his only son, as that son himself testified, to be- 
come a man among the children of men, and suffer death upon the cross, in 
atonement for their sins. That incarnate divinity had been made manifest by 
innumerable miracles. Christ had stilled the winds and waves, and walked upon 
the waters: he had healed diseases, and restored the dead to life: finally, he had 
risen from the dead himself, that we might rise again through him, and had as- 
cended into heaven, that he might receive us there in his glory; and he would 
come again to judge both the quick and the dead. " Think not," he proceeded, 
" O most excellent king, that we are superstitious, because w 7 e have come from 
Rome into thy dominions, for the sake of the salvation of thee and of thy peo- 
ple; we have done this, being constrained by great love: for that which we de- 
sire, above all the pomps and delights of this world, is to have our fellow-crea- 
tures partakers with ourselves in the kingdom of heaven, &c." [Southey's Book 
of the Church, chap. iii. p. 23. etc. 

My friend proposed a question, which he thought difficult. Why 
do I believe the bible] He said my answer would be, because the 
church believes it ; and this, he says, is like Peter giving a character 
to Paul, and Paul to Peter. I reciprocate the question of the gentle- 
man, and he says he believes in the church, because he believes in the 
bible. Thus the bible and church testify to each other in his theory, 
and the difficulty is infinitely greater for a Protestant, than for a Ca« 



262 DEBATE ON THE 

tholic. In fact, for a Catholic the question is not susceptible of any 
difficulty, whatever. One word will shew that we are right. Which 
was prior? The bible or the church 1 Manifestly, the bible was the 
older. The apostles did not wait to have thousands of bibles copied, 
and to freight vessels with them, and sail as supercargoes of the hea- 
venly merchandise, to the distant nations of the earth. u Faith" says 
St. Paul, " comes from hearing" There were millions of converts to 
Christianity, whole nations were converted to the Savior, by preach- 
ings before the different books composing the present bible, were de- 
termined to be genuine Scripture and collected into one volume. This 
was not done before the beginning of the fourth century. The church 
was therefore prior to the bible : and if the bible had never been writ- 
ten, the gospel could have been preached and believed, as it was in 
the early ages, without its aid. How did the apostles make converts 
without the bible'? They addressed themselves to the reason of the 
unconverted nations. They convinced them, if necessary, of the ex- 
istence of God, by the spectacle of the divine wisdom and power, dis- 
played in the creation and preservation of the world. They appealed 
to the natural law, whose precepts were written by the finger of God, 
on tablets of flesh, the hearts of men, before they were engraven on 
stone, amidst the thunder and lightnings of Sinai. Thus did they 
find the great primary truths of natural religion, with regard to 
both doctrine and morals, inculcated by the contemplation of the 
visible wonders of creation and the testimony of the human heart. 
They next proceeded to convince their hearers of the unity of God, 
and the sinfulness and grossness of idolatry, of their having departed 
from the moral law, of the darkness in which sin had involved the 
human race, of our incompetency for our own cure, of the divine com- 
miseration of our misery, of the descent of Jesus Christ, his doctrine, 
his miracles, his charity, his establishment of his church, his sacra- 
ments and the various means of grace, his promises to be with his 
apostles, He and his Holy Spirit, for ever, his death, &c. The holiness 
of the apostles' lives, the cruel death with which they sealed the truth 
they had proclaimed, conciliated the belief and completed the conversion 
of their hearers. " I willingly " says Paschal, "believe the witnesses, 
who let their throats be cut to attest the truth of what they declare" The 
bible could not shed its blood to attest its divine origin. The ignorant, 
who are a large proportion of the human race, could not read it; the 
learned, and the pious, and the sincere, as every one knows, found it 
a task far above their strength, to distinguish genuine from spurious 
scripture. Before the invention of printing, men could not procure 
bibles: since the invention of printing, they read them to introduce a 
flood of new sects; so that there are now as many religions, almost, 
as there are different versions or different readers of the scriptures. If, 
on the contrary, there is anything clearly taught in the scriptures, it is 
the authority of the church, which, without aid from the bible, not all 
composed when the first apostles preached, had fully established her 
authority, and, indcpend ntly of her miracles, proved, by the preterm 
natural success of her preaching, that God was indeed with her, as he 
had promised, teaching all nations, and perpetually suggesting to her 
all truth. Hence, we believe in the church first; and on the faith of 
the evidences which I have enumerated, we believe in the bible, which 
the church presents to us, vouching for its purity and authenticity. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 263 

The bible obtained, sanctions the authority of the church, and confirms 
our faith. Here, all is consistent, and our submission to the church is 
reasonable. The Protestant divines, Hooker and Chillingworth, allow 
that the bible cannot bear testimony to itself: even Luther was forced 
to acknowledge it. " We are obliged," says he, " to yield many 
things to the papists ; that with them is the word of God, that we re- 
reived from them ; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all 
about it." (Comment on John, c. 16.) Hence the remarkable saying 
of St. Augustine : " I should not believe the gospel itself, if the 
Catholic church did not oblige me to do so." Will my friend inform 
me, why he rejects an authentic work, of great excellence, written by 
St. Barnabas ; who is termed, in scripture, an apostle, and declared to 
be full of the holy Ghost, (Acts xiv. 24, xi. 24 ;) and receives, as 
canonical, parts of the New Testament, which were not written by 
apostles at all, viz. the gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke 1 The original 
text of Moses, and the ancient prophets, was destroyed with the tem- 
ple and city of Jerusalem, by the Assyrians under Nebuchadnezzar; and 
the authentic copies which replaced them, perished in the persecution 
of Antiochus. How were these books restored 1 Paul wrote his 
Epistle to the Romans, and entrusted it to the deaconess Phcebe. His 
Epistle to the Ephesians, he confided to the disciple Tychicus. How 
can we be sure of these epistles, as they now stand in the Testament] 
Was it not the corruption of the bible by Queen Elizabeth's bishops, 
that caused James I. to have a new translation to be made 1 But, 1 
should be endless, if I enumerated all the insurmountable difficulties, 
which a Protestant encounters at the very first step of his journey in 
quest of a religion. He must turn Catholic at the very outset, and take 
the bible, as he gets it, on authority, or remain an unbeliever all his life. 
And he must believe that authority to be infallible, or he can never be sure 
that the bible it gives him is divine. Catholics have faith by baptism, as 
Protestants have ; hut the latter lose it when they adopt, on arriving 
at mature age, the Protestant principle, that every man must find out 
his religion for himself, from the bible. Many Protestants are not ad- 
monished of the danger of their situation, and do not themselves reflect 
on these difficulties. As long as they are sincere, and do the best they 
can to obey God and conscience, the Catholic church excuses them, in 
the words of St. Augustine : " Let those treat you harshly, who know not 
how hard it is to get rid of old prejudices. Let those treat you harshly, 
who have not learned how very hard it is to purify the interior eye, and 
render it capable of contemplating the sun of the soul, truth. But, as 
to us : we are far from this disposition towards persons who are separ- 
ated from us, not by errors of their own invention, but by their being 
entangled in those of others. We are so far from this disposition, that 
we pray to God, that in refuting the false opinions of those whom you 
follow, not from malice, but from imprudence, he would bestow upon 
us that spirit of peace, which feels no other sentiment than charity, no 
other interest than that of Jesus Christ, no other wish but for your 
salvation." Had we been born Mahommedans, we would, perhaps, 
live Mahommedans. Thank God, we are not. But, this does not re- 
quire us to throw away our faith. It would be too long to notice all 
the gentleman says. I attend to the most important. 

Now, I Will venture to assert, that there is not a Protestant in this 
house, who can say, that he has found out all the tenets which he be- 



264 DEBATE ON THE 

lieves, by reading the bible alone. He believes them, because his 
parents, and teachers, and minister, his catechism, taught them ; 
or a hundred other influences may have been brought to bear upon his 
mind and his affections, favorable to those peculiar tenets. It is not at 
all the case with Protestant children, any more than with Catholic chil- 
dren, that reason is theirs/ to lead them to their belief. Let each one 
candidly examine his own heart, and ask himself if he was not as 
much educated in those doctrines which he now professes, as the Cath- 
olics were in theirs. 

How can he be sure, if he indeed possess an authentic copy of the 
scriptures, that he understands them 1 " The word of God," says the 
Protestant bishop, Walton, " does not consist in mere letters, whether 
written or printed, but in the sense of it; which no one can better in- 
terpret than the true church, to which Christ committed this same 
pledge." (Polyglot. Proleg. ch. v.) 

My opponent says, there was a copy of the scriptures found, which 
the fingers of a monk had never soiled. And how does he go about to 
establish this proposition \ He quoted Home. I will take up this 
very work, and prove, while I admit that Home was a learned writer, 
that he fell into some very unlearned blunders. But, how does Home 
say that my friend is right ? He says, that this very manuscript was 
found in one of the twenty-two monasteries of Mount Athos ! ! Lo ! 
there was a monk at the bottom of it after all ! [Time expired.] 

Four o'clock, P. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

My friends, there is any thing but order in our discussion — I mean 
logical order, as respects the duties of a respondent. Now, certain- 
ly, this will abundantly appear in the report of this debate. 

The gentleman has not once, as yet, replied to my speeches in regu- 
lar sequence ; but, after the interval of a night, a day, and sometimes 
two days, he responds to some point or argument : and then his re- 
ply consists either in accusing me of misunderstanding, or misstating 
what he has said ; or perhaps in denying my authorities, or by intro- 
ducing some extract, or tradition, or opinion, from some great Pro- 
testant, or some good Catholic, or some excogitation of his own. 
His last speech was a happy illustration of Ovid's 

u congestaque eodem — 
Non bene junctarum discordia semina rerum." 

[Metamor. lib. I 

And, certainly, his mirthfulness and gravity were in unison with 
the dignity of his reply ; and equally fallible as respects effect of any 
sort upon his audience. This rhetoric soon wears out. It is but an 
echo, a sound, a shadow ; the crisis calls for something more solid. But 
if it cannot be found, I must submit to interruption, and turn aside to 
notice the gleanings of his last and best reflections upon the prophecies. 

The gentleman has given us from his library some ridiculous puns 
upon the name of Mahomet. He does not, and under his hard desti- 
ny he cannot, always discriminate the precise point in debate. It is 
not about the name of an individual, such as Ludovicus, or Maho- 
met; but of a people — a community — a kingdom. His second mis- 
take is, that if it were a personal name, the number of the name of 
Mahomet as given in his example only makes 502. His name pro- 
perly written is equal to only 463. He ought also to have decipher- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 265 

ed, or his author, whether his name should be taken as it is written 
in Arabic or in Greek. But whether he take it in Arabic or in Greek, 
it will not in Grecian numerals, and certainly not in Arabic, equal 
666, So fails his effort at both reason and ridicule to dispose of this 
morning's argument from prophecy. I again repeat, that on this point, 
as en every other, my argument appears unassailable. 

Yesterday my opponent was asked, where infallibility resided ; to- 
day he answers by asking, where shall we find the mind ? In the 
head, stomach, hands, feet, or where 1 This is not a parallel case. 
The question is, as usual, mistaken, or misapplied. It is, where is 
the mouth of infallibility ] when I desire an infallible response, where 
shall I hear it 1 Where is the tongue of infallibility 1 If the church 
possess infallibility and never decides a question by any organ — ne- 
ver can utter an answer, it is worth no more than a diamond in the 
depths of the Atlantic. 

The alpha and omega of the proofs offered by the bishop for the ex- 
istence of infallibility, which has been so often repeated, and which 
I promised sometime to notice, is this : " I am with you," Now, lo- 
gic asks, what means " I am with you \" as proving infallibility, un- 
less " I am with you," is a phrase already incontrovertibly established 
to mean infal^ ibility. But what says bible fact ] There are, at least, four 
meanings of the phrase. I am with you, personally, providentially, gra- 
ciously, or with miraculous power. It could not be the first : for he 
was leaving them personally. It could not be the second ; because 
that was common to all good men. Thus God was with Joseph, with 
Jacob, with all the patriarchs, and with all good men. It could not 
be that God was to be with them graciously ; for that too, is common 
to all christians. As the apostles said to all good christians, " The Lord 
be with you all," it could not be a special promise to the apostles. 
What remains then 1 Mark, the evangelist, explains : " These signs 
shall follow. In my name shall they cast out devils: they shall 
speak with new tongues, serpents shall they take away ; and if they 
drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. They shall impose 
hands on the sick and they shall be whole." So the Rhemish Testa- 
ment reads Mark's account of the promise, " I am with you." Again : 
after the ascension of the Messiah, the evangelist relates, v. 20. " But 
they" (the apostles) "going forth preached every where: our Lord 
working with all, and confirming the word with signs that followed." 

This, then, is the proof of infallibility, as interpreted by Mark in 
the canon Catholic Testament. Nov/, does not this confine the pro- 
mise to the apostles ] Can the popes work miracles 1 Can the bish- 
ops 1— Such a miracle, forsooth, as the existence of the Roman Ca- 
tholic church in the western empire, after the rise of Mahometanism 
in the east ! A splendid miracle, truly ! That proves as much for 
Mahometanism and Paganism, as for the popes of Rome : for all 
these systems rose upon the ruin, and also withstood the shocks of 
other systems ! 

When Peter said to the cripple, " Silver and gold I have none ; but 
such as I have I give thee — In the name of Jesus take up your bed and 
walk," he felt that he possessed something in the promise " I am 
with you." Can any of his successors speak in this style: silver 
and gold I have none : but such as I have (the power of Christ) I 
give thee ] 

The gentleman's dissertation on the vicious circle, leaves him 

X 34 



286 DEBATE ON THE 

where it found him ; believing the church first and the bible aite> 
wards ; and making the one prove the other : but he will never dis- 
pose of it. He is like the eccentric witness, whose veracity could 
only be proved by the principal: and yet the principal depends for 
his veracity upon the witness. The bishop for a little while turned 
Protestant, and then he affirmed that he believed in Christ on the ev- 
idence of his own miracles ; and that evidence he found in the bible, 
and that bible he interpreted for himself. Thus he became a Protest- 
ant, when he attempted to solve that Gordion knot. But as soon as 
he had, by the Protestant rule, obtained faith in Christ, he instantly 
relapsed into the embrace of holy mother, and denounced the bridge 
over which he escaped from the island. 

But the gentleman asked a question which has puzzled wise men to 
answer. A child* however of four years old could have asked Newton 
a question that he could not have answered in a thousand years. 
"How can you prove the bible 1" says the bishop. Does it prove 
itself? I will imitate him, this once, and ask, does nature prove it- 
self? Does God prove his own existence without his works or by 
his works'? Must there be another universe created to prove this 1 — 
This is a question no one will put, unless on the hypothesis that no 
man can prove a universe to exist but by other testimony than itself. 
So the bible proves itself to be the word of God, as nature proves it- 
self to be the work of God. Thus has the supreme intelligence stamp- 
ed the impress of himself both on nature and revelation. David says, 
" Lord, thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." I have 
other reasons, if necessary, to prove how the bible was put together. 
Many a christian has been made so by the single testimony of one 
evangelist; or by a single epistle of Paul. We have four gospels; 
but one would have been enough ; and as much as many individuals 
had. The whole christian doctrine might be learned from Paul alone, 
from perhaps the half of his epistles. Paul and Peter wrote, and said 
much more by divine inspiration than is preserved or recorded. So 
did the ancient prophets. We need not to prove, in order to our faith, 
who collected the writings into one volume, any more, than who col- 
lected all the words of Christ, that are reported. 

Cardinal Bellarmine says: "There is sure to be some doctor at 
the head of a schism." Heresiarchs are generally men of letters. 
Where then the pertinency of those remarks about the unlearned wres- 
ting the scriptures'? The original means untaught, untradable persons 
rather than unlearned. Philosophers, as they love to be called, are 
generally the most unteachable, and the greatest wresters and perver- 
ters of the scriptures. Peter had those too w T ise to learn, in his eye, 
when he spoke of wresting the scripture ; and not the simple, honest 
and unassuming laity. Let a man sit down as Mary sat, at the feet of 
Christ, and humble himself as a pupil ought; he will then hear the 
voice of God, and understand it too. He will then discern how it is, 
that all God's children are taught by God, and that there is none that 
teacheth like him. 

Rather wittily than logically, the gentleman gives the monks some 
credit, for handling the Alexandrine manuscript. Be it known howev- 
er, that monkery began in St. Anthony's time; and that this said copy 
is older than the founder of monasteries. Because Tacitus, Livy, Hor- 
ace, and Virgil passed through their hands., are we dependent on them 






ROMAN CATHOLIC KELIGIOS. 267 

for all our knowledge of Greek and Roman letters? The monks handled 
copies that they never wrote. But that gave those copies neither 
more nor less credit, f did not mean that one ought not to thumb the 
scriptures in reading them, when I spoke of them being soiled by the 
hands of a monk. I have then, so far as objection has been made, as I con- 
conceive, sustained the sixth proposition. Will the president moderator 
please have the 5th proposition read? [The 5th prop, was here read,] 

Prop. V. Her notions of purgatory, indulgences, auricular confession, remis- 
sion of sins, transubstintiation, supererogation, &c. essential elements of her sys- 
tem, are immoral in their tendency, and injurious to the well-being of society, 
religious and political. 

Now, my friends, I want to strike a blow at the main root of the 
whole papal superstition : for that root is found in the proposition just 
now read. I have but little time to do it, and shall, therefore, march 
right up to the point at once. 

The capital, distinguishing doctrine of Protestantism, next to the 
bible alone as the rule and measure of christian faith and manners, 
and the right and duty of all to read and examine it is, that the death of 
Jesus Christ was not simply that of a martyr : hut that " be died for 
our sins, according to the scriptures." That the death or sacrifice of 
Christ is the great sin offering, and the only sin offering, is a cardinal 
doctrine of Protestantism ; and that there is now no priest, nor vic- 
tim, nor sacrifice, nor altar, nor sin offering on earth follows, as a 
matter of course. Jesus was " the Lamb of God" — " Himself the sin 
offering and the priest." He expiated our sins in his own body on the 
cross." " His blood cleanses from all sin." Papal priests, penances, 
confessions, masses, remissions, purgatories, intercessions of saints, 
angels, and almost all their ceremonies, arise from the notion, the 
radical mistake that the sacrifice of Christ, as a sin offering, an atone- 
ment, a reconciliation, was some way deficient. Although we can 
trace supererogation, purgatory, penances, lustrations, the intercessions 
of angels and dead men, &c. to the philosophers and dreamers of the 
east — their divine Platos, Pythagorases and Aristotles : still the im- 
mediate origin and cause of all these errors may be traced to ignorance 
of the bible doctrine of the priesthood of Christ, the antitype of that of 
Aaron and Melchisidee. It was Dryden, a Roman Catholic poet, if I 
mistake not, who said that the dos pou sto* which Archimedes sought 
in vain by which to raise the globe, was found by the popes of Rome 
in the doctrine of purgatory. That was the philosopher's stone — the 
lever which lifts the world — which has brought more gold to Rome, 
than the discovery of America itself. 

My friends, the doctrine of purgatory with all its correlates is based 
on two errors. 

1st. That man can do more than his duty : 

2d. That something may be added to the sacrifice of Christ to give it 
more value or efficacy. 

Now, I affirm, that no created being, not a Gabriel, or Uriel, or Raph- 
ael, or the highest of the angelic hosts, can do an act of superero- 
gation. No man can, by any thought, word, or action, make God his 
debtor. " Who," says Paul, " has first given to the Lord, and it shall 
be recompensed to him again] For, of him, and through him, and to 
him, are all things." Jesus told his disciples, that when they had 
done all that was commanded them, they had only done their duty, 
and were to him unprofitable servants. The greatest saint that 



268 DEBATE ON THE 

ever lived is not more holy than he ought to he, on his own account. 
This single thought evaporates that sea of merit which has performed 
such wonders in Roman story. 

No human being has any thing to give to God ; and therefore none 
can merit from him any thing. If a man's salvation depended on his 
shedding a single tear, where could he find it ? The heart that feels 
and the tear that flows, clear as chrystal down the cheek of the most 
devoted saint, are of God's creation. And, therefore, it is out of the 
question, to conceive how any work of merit, as respects God, is pos- 
sible for angel or for man. 

Were a saint to turn pilgrim and peregrinate on his naked knees 
the four quarters of the globe, were he to give his body to the flames, 
when God asks it, or duty requires it; he has deserved nothing from 
God, on the ground of merit. He has only employed the powers that 
God gave him, and used his faculties in a way consonant to the de- 
signs of him that gave them. And sooner will a man add new glo- 
ries to the sun or create new luminaries in the heavens, than add one 
attribute of merit or of power to the sacrifice of Christ. " He fin- 
ished transgression : made an end of sin offerings, brought in an ever- 
lasting justification ;" and left nothing to be done to make his sacri- 
fice more meritorious or efficient. 

Works of supererogation, auricular confession, masses for sins, 
transubstantiation, purgatory, with all the appurtenances thereto be- 
longing, are the veriest ghosts of paganism — the phantoms of infatu- 
ated reason, attempts against the dignity of God and the supremacy, 
as well as the true and proper divinity and dignity of his Son. 

This superstition, this man of sin, stands with his two feet upon 
the two greatest lies in human history. He places his right foot on 
the first and his left foot on the second. Need I say that the former 
affirms that the sacrifice of God's own Son is insufficient as a sin offer- 
ing .♦ and that the latter teaches that man can do more than his duty to 
God. Here then, I say to my opponent, I will measure swords with 
him. Let him meet me on these too points, then it will be an easy 
task to dispose of his imaginary purgatories, transubstantiation, pen- 
ances, works of supererogation, &c. &c. and to shew that so far from 
bringing glory to God or righteousness to men, they are positively, 
naturally, and necessarily opposed to both. Let him try his strength 
of scriptural argument and reason on these cardinal points, and it 
will, as our time is so far exhausted, save the tediousness of nume- 
rous details. — [Time expired.] 

Half-past 4 o'clock, P. 31. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

My friends, it is imperative upon me to make one exposition before 
I proceed. Many of you were here when my friend would have led 
you into a gross mistake, respecting the Catholic church, by quoting 
a pretended extract from Liguori. I asserted then, that nothing could 
be found in that writer's works to substantiate the odious charge, to 
give it so much as a semblance of truth. I have now before me the 
entire works of Liguori, and I have placed them in the presence of 
my friend, Mr. Campbell. The 9th volume has an index, containing 
every word of any importance, and I repeat, that after a search through 
the whole nine volumes, nothing like the quotation of last evening can 
be found. I have now placed the book in the hands of Professor 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 269 

Biggs, of Lane seminary, one of the moderators, and a Protestant of 
the Presbyterian denomination, if I do not mistake, and I will leave 
it to him, or any other intelligent and candid man, to say to you 
whether the fact is as my friend has stated, or the very contrary of 
what he has stated. 

Mb. Campbell. Be so good as to explain the matter fully. 

Bishop Pubcell. I will explain the exact state of the case. Mr, 
Smith, the author of the translation, from whom my friend read this, 
as well as many other things, has given a false quotation, and made 
Liguori say, what he never said. The facts are these : a canon of the 
council of Trent, and Liguori, according to the canon, say, " that if 
a priest falls by criminal intercourse, as specified, from the holy 
state of purity, to which he is bound by a voluntary, deliberate, and 
solemn vow, he shall be deprived of a large portion of his salary for 
the first offence. If he does not refrain after admonition and such 
punishment, he is again admonished, and deprived of his whole salary, 
and suspended from all his functions as a priest in the Catholic church. 
But after the third admonition, if he is still incorrigible, he is excom- 
municated, and cut off from the church, even as St. Paul cut off the 
incestuous man of Corinth." 1st. Ep. Corinth, ch. 5. v. 5. No where, 
in_any part of these volumes, is it said that a priest may sin thus upon 
jpaym^a fine, &c. 

Thus, my friends, you see how the poisonous fountains of error and 
prejudice have been swelling over the land, and infecting the public 
mind, until many an honest and upright man has thought, when he 
denounced us for our (imputed) doctrines, he was doing God a service. 
Were he aware of the imposition practised on his credulity, he would, 
I have no doubt, have turned his indignation on more deserving victims. 
" If we leave off slandering them" said the ministers of Amsterdam, 
to Vossius, who remonstrated with them on their injustice to the Ca- 
tholics, " our people will soon leave us," " We shalldo no good with the 
people" said Shaftesbury, speaking of the Mocedo plot, " if xve cannot 
make them swallow greater nonsense than this" " Thou shalt not bear false 
witness against thy neighbor" is a commandment which Maria Monk 
and her reverend protectors reckon not to belong to the " weightier 
things of the law." Their stale calumnies are paid for with the blood- 
money ! Our doctrine, many of its ministerial adversaries know to be 
pure and holy ; but, overwhelmed with confusion, whenever they at- 
tempt argument, they have no resource but in addressing themselves 
to the prejudices of their implicit believers. These mock at Catholics 
for "hearing the church;" and whom do they hear 1 ? 

As to the bible, the whole difficulty is to be gone over again and 
again. Every new translation, it seems, lies open to objections on 
grave and important grounds. I have here a paper, printed at Kana- 
wha, in Cabell county, Virginia. In it a considerable class of Bap- 
tists. I think they are, quarrel with their brethren near Zoar, in Ohio, 
and quarrel with the bible. They insist that all the existing transla- 
tions of it should be rejected, and a new one commenced for them- 
selves from the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures — if they get 
them ! They can never get a bible they are sure of. They cannot get 
the original Hebrew in which the gospel of St. Matthew was written. 
St. Jerome says he had seen it, and that is all we know of it since. 
They cannot in twelve months of the time that the getting up of their 
bible will require, determine, on grounds satisfactory to a biblical 



270 DEBATE ON THE 

critic, and on Protestant principles, why they adopt or reject, as the 
event may be, the seventh verse, of the fifth chapter, of the 1st Epistle 
of St. John. 

While this paper was being printed at Charleston, Virginia, the 
" Churchman," at New York, perhaps at the same hour, was printing 
the very proof I have read to you, in favor of the Catholic doctrine of 
confession. Let the Burmese and all others, Pagans or Christians, 
lie on their oars, till the new scriptures appear. Then let printers, 
agents and missionaries, be well paid, and the cumbrous machinery 
set 10 work, and compass heaven and earth to make one proselyte, 
who surely cannot be more settled in his faith than they who thus de- 
spise the " inspired, authoritative, perpetual, catholic, perfect and in- 
telligible rule." 

He says the documents I have read are not pertinent. Now he cer 
tainly did not suspect that I thought he would so consider them. In his 
estimation, there is nothing pertinent, logical, relevant, in all this dis- 
cussion, but what he says himself. This he has neglected no oppor- 
tunity of impressing on our attention. But the public will be the best 
judge, and they can see through the attempts of either disputant to 
forestall their impartial and unbiassed verdict. The printed report of 
this controversy, will shew the pertinency or impertinency of our re- 
spective arguments, and, for my own part, I have not the slightest fear 
of the result. 

I am very far from believing that I am worthy of advocating the 
holy cause, in which my humble talents, and all my heart's affections 
are enlisted, but such is my confidence in the power of that truth, 
which I embraced on conviction as soon as I was able to judge for 
myself, and whose evidences have been, ever since, brightening to my 
understanding, the more I examine them, that I ask no more than that 
my unadorned arguments should fall into the hands of thinking men. 

My opponent says that the whole structure of Catholicism is an as- 
sumption, and rests upon two lies. The gentleman pledged himself at 
the commencement of this debate, to use no opprobrious language, and 
I promised not to set him the example. How he has kept his word, 
as the terms in which his propositions are expressed are so very re- 
fined, let these, by which they are defended, decide. I will not bandy 
epithets with him, but I must say that the Catholic church has two 
sound legs to stand upon. The gentleman tenders her crutches which 
she modestly declines, with the suggestion that as his argument is 
lame he may have occasion for them himself! I will argue these va- 
rious doctrines which he has enumerated and prove them all to be 
founded in the bible, and believed, in all past ages, from the time of 
Christ and his apostles. The gentleman has misrepresented, or he 
does not understand our doctrine. We believe that there is no other 
name under heaven, but the name of Jesus given to men, whereby 
they may be saved. Acts i v. 12. We believe that "by one oblation 
Christ hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" Heb. x. 14. 
That atonement by His vicarious sacrifice, if not the first, is one of the 
great cardinal doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, no man who 
pretends to any acquaintance with that doctrine, will, or can venture 
to deny. Christ has paid an all-sufficient price for our ransom. But 
do we arraign the sacrifice of Christ of insufficiency, when we sanc- 
tify the Sabbath, when we give alms to the poor, when we abstain from 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 271 

evil, when we hear preaching, or go to prayer 1 When St. Paul chas- 
tised his body and brought it under subjection, lest, while he preached 
to others he should himself become a reprobate, did he believe Christ's 
sacrifice incomplete] that it needed his supplementary austerities? 
Or that the other Apostles should command us, to make sure our election 
and vocation by good works ,• to work out our salvation with fear and 
trembling 7 ? No; God who made us without ourselves, will not save us 
without ourselves. He requires our co-operation, and with his grace 
he aids our weak endeavor. This grace he communicates to us by divers 
channels, and in various ways. Of these the principal are the seven sa- 
craments, which, if I may use the gentleman's figure in its proper appli 
cation, like the seven mouths of the Nile convey the healing waters from 
the fountains of the Savior to every portion of the church. The will 
is made and recorded. The executors, the apostles and priests of the 
church, convey and apply an adequate portion to the wants of men. 
Wherever a captive may be presumed to groan in spiritual slavery, 
they seek him out, they proclaim to him the glad tidings of his deliv- 
erance, they pay", with the treasures of Christ, of which they are the 
depositaries, the price of his ransom ; and this when they find the slave 
willing to accept the terms on which redemption is offered, do they 
carry into effect, in his behalf, the charitable intentions of the divine 
testator. Is this arraigning- his bounty, or distributing it as he com- 
manded ? Is this robbing Christ of his glory, or calling all nations to 
bask in its rays and exult in its effulgence'? The Catholic church, in 
all the institutions she venerates, the sacraments she administers, the 
truths she proclaims, the sacrifices she offers, the prayers she prefers, 
the charity she inculcates, the grace she dispenses, acts by the com- 
mand of Christ, in the name of Christ. This is the true and living way 
by which she commands all to seek access to the Father, and by Him, 
with Him, and in Him, to give to God all honor and glory forever. 
He is the sun of the entire system, and all the ordinances of religion, 
are but the rays of that sun enlightening and vivifying the christian 
pilgrim at every step of his weary progress through this vale of tears. 
Sacrifice, we consider indispensable to religion. It has been offered 
to God in every age, by every people, under every form of religion. 
Abel offered sacrifice in Eden, the purest firstlings of his flocks, for he 
was a shepherd. Cain sacrificed the fruits of the earth, for he was a 
husbandman. Noah, when the waters of the deluge had subsided, 
Solomon, when he dedicated the temple, offered sacrifices ; even the 
Pagan nations of the earth, who changed the glory of the incorruptible 
God, into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds, 
and of four-footed boasts, paid homage to this dictate of nature, and 
continued the rite of sacrifice, however unworthy the objects of idola- 
try. From all this we rightly infer, that the only perfect religion 
should not be destitute of sacrifice. The scripture everywhere testi- 
fies to its necessity. Melchisedec, as we read in Genesis, offered 
bread and wine. He was a priest of the most High God. And David, 
in the 109th Psalm, says of Jesus Christ, King of Justice, King of 
Peace, "The Lord hath sworn, and it shall not repent him, thou art a 
priest forever according to the order of Melchisedec." When God 
abrogates the Jewish dispensation, and substitutes a new and better in 
its stead, he says to the Jews, by the last of all the prophets, " I have 
no pleasure in you, &allh ife Lord of ho$is ; and I will not receive a gift 



272 DEBATE ON THE 

of your hand ; for from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my 
name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is a sacrifice, 
and there is offered to my name a clean oblation ,• for my name is great 
among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts" Malachias, ch. 11, 6. v. 
When Jesus Christ, as we read in three Evangelists, instituted the 
Blessed Eucharist, he said to his apostles, " This my body, which is 
offered for you. This is my blood, which is shed for you. Do this in com' 
memoration of me." 

Catholics obey the injunctions of the Savior, they do what he com- 
manded them, they offer the memorial sacrifice, they continue and re- 
present the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon Calvary. They offer it 
under the forms of bread and wine as Melchisedec had done in figure. 
They offer it from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof, 
as Malachy had predicted. On Asia's distant plains, under the burn- 
ing sun of Africa, in the tangled forests of the western world, as well 
as in its new and blooming cities, the sacrifice is offered and the pro- 
phecy obtains its glorious accomplishment. If Protestants say they 
have the sacrifice of the death of Christ, I answer with our divines, 
so had the servants of God, under the law of nature and the written 
law ; for it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats, sin 
should be taken away ; nevertheless they had perpetual sacrifices to 
represent the death of Christ, and to apply the fruits of it to their souls. 
In the same manner the Catholics have Christ himself really present, 
and mystically offered on their altars daily, for the same ends. 

If time permitted, I might call up in review before you those vener- 
able bishops and doctors whose blood sealed the doctrine, which their 
writings had defended. The saint Johns and the Polycarps of the east 
—the Irenaeuses and the Hilaries of the west — those venerable men 
whose great age, like that of the patriarchs of old, enabled them to 
transmit to their children without fear of error, or multiplying too 
much the intermediate links — the traditionary chain of their own and 
their forefathers' belief—what they believed and taught themselves 
and what was daily practised in those old centurial churches 
which we have inherited from them, built many ages before any of 
the modern dissentient religions were known, and where the altar and 
the cross, the liturgy and the stone from the wall, bore testimony to 
the real presence in the Eucharist, to the divinity of the victim that 
was offered there in sacrifice ! — [Time expired.] 



FRIDAY, January 20. Half past 9 o'clock, A. M. 

Mr. Campbell rises — 

I did not, in first taking up " The Synopsis of the Moral Theology 
of the Roman Church," say aught of its author, or of the causes which 
ushered it into existence. But since it has become a matter of so 
much debate, 1 shall state a few things concerning it and its author, 
Mr. Smith, the author, was a member of that community for seventeen 
years, several of which he officiated as a priest. Convinced of the 
errors of that superstition, he publicly renounced it, and is now a Pro- 
testant minister, greatly devoted to the cause of Protestantism* From 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 2" 3 

his intimate acquaintance with the spirit and tendency of the Roman 
Catholic institution, he has recently translated a considerable portion 
of the works of Saint Ligori. Tiie title of the book is : 

44 A synopsis of the moral theology of the church of Rome, taken from the 
works of St. Ligori and translated from the Latin into English by SAMUEL B. 
Smith, late a popish priest." New York, 1836. 

It is further explained in the preface : 

44 What we present before the public in this synopsis, is a compendious view 
of the doctrine of the church of Rome, now taught in all her schools. It is a 
fair and exact translation of selected portions of the voluminous Moral THEO- 
LOGY of St. Alphonsus de Ligorio, published at Mechlin in Belgium, superio 
rum permissu, in the year 1828." [Preface, p. 5. 

Of its author he speaks thus: 

44 He was enrolled among the sain's, as the title page of his work declares, by 
pope Pius VII. on the 15th of September, in the year 1816." [Pref. p. 6. 

It seems that this work is so popular, as to be found in almost 
every priest's library, and is quoted by them, as of the highest au- 
thority. 

''Besides the above testimony in confirmation of the authority of St. Ligori, 
we have also that of the Rev. father Valera himself, the popish priest of the city 
of New York. This Rev. father Felix Valera, about a year and a half ago, in 
his attempt at a refutation of my 44 renunciation of popery" quotes this very 
same Ligori as overwhelming and decisive authority against something which 
he found advanced by me." [Pref. p. 9. 

In some very important matters, he has given the original itself; 
and fearing, as the manner is, that his translation might be called in 
question, he says : 

"If they deny that we have given a fair translation, we will then challenge 
them to come forward in a public assembly with the works of St. Ligori, when 
we promise to meet them, and submit our translation, and the original, to the 
inspection of a committee, one half of whom to be chosen by ourselves, and the 
other half by the Roman clergy. Truth never shuns investigation. If we have 
not given a fair, genuine, and true translation, and if we have not exhibited the 
doctrines of Ligori and the church of Rome fairly and correctly, without gar- 
bling, or giving an erroneous construction, we will be willing to incur the con- 
sequences that we ought to expect, for having deceived the public." Svnop. 
Pref. p. 12. 

I have given but a sample of this work, though I have made numer- 
ous quotations ; only one of which has been challenged by my antag- 
onist. That point I touched as. lightly as possible, because unsuited 
to a popular assembly. This the gentleman fully understands. I 
s-urred it over, in terms the least intelligible which I could select at 
the moment : but he has no reason to object even to the comment, that 
Mr. Smith puts upon the article quoted. He well knows that mar- 
riage in the priesthood is instant excommunication ; while concubin- 
age is matter of forbearance. In the course of this discussion, I had 
occasion to observe, that I found very many canons of the church, even 
in the fifth and sixth centuries, on the subject of marriage and its 
abuses. This, from the modesty of my exposition, he took occasion 
to use in argument, as proof that the celibacy of the clergy was early- 
introduced. This was a perversion of my observation, which the deli- 
cacy of my situation would not allow me to explain. Nor will I now 
sin against my own feelings, or those of my audience, by going fully 
into such details. I will only add, that I have a superfluity of evi- 
dence in proof of the allegation of Ligori. The casuistry, dissimula- 
tion, and immorality of the Jesuits, and the whole genius of the inter- 
nal spirit of the papacy, are abundantly attested in the two works ly- 
ing before me : " The Provincial Letters," of the accomplished Pas- 

35 



274 DEBATE ON THE 

chal, which I have not yet opened in this discussion ; and, " The 
Secreta Monita of the order of Jesus." This copy, in the original 
French, I am informed by the lady through whose kindness I have 
been furnished with it, was brought to this country by the secretary 
of the great and renowned La Fayette, on his last visit to the United 
States. This, our national benefactor, who, my opponent says, was 
a true Catholic, has declared, that if our liberty should be lost, it will 
be by the hands of priests. I saw this fact stated in two papers ; one 
published in Richmond, the other in New-York ; and I have no doubt 
of its correctness. 

The Secreta Monita has been a few years since, translated at Prin- 
ceton N. J. and is now found in many book-stores in this country. 
From the perusal of these two volumes, we shall find that the moral 
theology of St. Ligori, the doctrine of Smith's Synopsis, is in per- 
fect unison with the true spirit of the Roman clergy and institution. 

The gentleman mentioned the disclosures of Maria Monk. I did 
not ; because I rely on no such documents. What she says, is private 
property ; and there is no occasion for bringing it into this contro- 
versy. I have my own opinion of it however : but need not its aid 
on this occasion. 

The gentleman speaks often of the imperfections and difficulties 
of Protestant translations of the bible. He says that we Protestants 
are in a deplorable state ; always making new translations, and never, 
or not long satisfied with any of them : and seems to sympathize with 
us, as if we were without the scriptures. This pretended condolence, 
I only notice because it gives me an opportunity to repeat with em- 
phasis, that his church, with all her pretended infallibility, cannot pro- 
duce a translation of any sort, in any living language on earth ! With 
all the riches, and learning, and infallibility of the Roman hierarchy ; 
she owns not an English New Testament, authentic or authorized 
either by pope or council, or the church diffusive or responsive. How 
supremely ridiculous, therefore, for the gentleman to talk of Protes- 
tant translations, as imperfect ! How does he infallibly know that 
any one of them is imperfect 1 Two infallible editions of the Latin 
vulgate have been made by the authority of two popes, not thirty 
years distant from each other; and yet they differ in more than 2000 
places !!! Sixtus V. issued a bull, with an anathema, against any 
man that would change his authorized vulgate, even in the least par- 
ticle, (in minima particula,) yet, Clement VIII. had the audacity, 
in despite of said bull, to order a new translation, and did accomplish 
it, changing it more than 2000 times, and sometimes very seriously, 
to the amount of clauses, and whole verses, as Dr. James in his Bel- 
lum Papale has amply testified. Thus the Clementine vulgate, under 
the solemn curse of the Sixtine bull, carries upon it the seal of infal- 
libility ! 

I now invite attention to the subject of yesterday evening. I then 
endeavored to state, as briefly as I could, the two fundamental errors 
on which the Man of sin stands. The first, — That the sacrifice of Je- 
sus Christ was not alone sufficient, to put away sin; and the second, 
^-That persons can do more than their duty. To provoke discussion 
on these two great doctrinal lies, I stated that all the peculiar doc- 
trines of the Roman Catholic church, viz. penance, purgatory, tran- 
substantiation, and all this priestly sacrifice, confession, &c. were 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 275 

built upon these two doctrinal lies. I shall not further discuss that 
subject, till the gentleman agrees to meet me there. 

Again, It is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, that the 
" intention" of the priest, in every act of worship and consecration, 
is essential to the validity of that act — that is, that unless the person 
ordaining a priest intend to ordain him, all that is done, is of no vali* 
dity, however exact the form ; because he did not intend in his heart, 
to ordain him ! So, in consecrating a wafer, without such intention, 
its nature is not changed ; and the reception of it, of no value. Such 
intention is essential to every act of religion, in which a priest offi- 
ciates. The efficacy of all ordinances, is therefore resolved into " the 
intention of the priest." He that denies the necessity of this inten- 
tion, according to the council of Trent, " is to be anathema." This 
is therefore, one of the essential doctrines of the church as necessary 
to salvation, as the gospel itself; for the rejection of it incurs as 
solemn a curse as any one of the hundred anathemas which the coun- 
cil of Trent pronounced in confirmation of its decrees. The only 
time, the word anathema is used by Paul in the sense of a curse is 
in his letter to the Galatians, in respect of corrupting the gospel. 
This then, is as essential as the gospel. Who then, let me ask, 
can have faith in any of the ceremonies or ordinances, or consecra- 
tions of Rome 1 Can any one know the intention in the heart of 
a priest or bishop 1 Nay, indeed, bishop Purcell never can prove 
to any mortal, that he is truly ordained : nor can any one have any 
faith in his services as a bishop, unless he know all hearts, from 
Peter's time till now, and could show that the intention was never 
wanting from the apostolic age till now, in the ancestorial official 
lines. This doctrine lays the axe at the root of all certainty in 
every part of the Roman Catholic religion : for in the judgment of 
that church multitudes of her clergy have proved hypocrites and im- 
postors, in whose intentions at any previous time, there can there- 
fore be no faith. So far as Protestants are concerned, their principles 
are perfectly free from this incertitude. Every Protestant feels the 
most perfect certainty in submitting to the ordinances of religion. The 
Protestant, minister knows and teaches that the ordinance receives no 
saving or salutary efficacy from his intentions, or his hands. Per- 
sons, who in faith and piety receive them, know that they receive all 
the efficacy of the ordinance, independent of any special virtue in him 
that does administer them. 

On the subject of indulgences I shall touch but lightly, for the 
want of time. The rich and profitable trade, which has been carried 
on by Rome in the sale of this single article of her merchandize 
is as public as her name. The conspicuity of this subject as connect- 
ed with the Protestant Reformation is as familiar as the names of Lu- 
ther and Tetzel. It is a sprout from the root of supererogation, from 
the doctrine of human merit — that immense bank of which the clergy 
are directors. The intolerable abuses of that board of directors was 
the punctum saliens of the Protestant Reformation. Pope Leo X. 
president in that day, wanted to pay off some sixty million of dollars, 
incurred and being incurred for the splendid edifice of St. Peters at 
Rome. He published a plenary remission of past sins, and an indul- 
gence to all contributing to this splendid undertaking. As a matter of 
curiosity and of edification, we shall here read the form of these in- 
dulgences. 



276 DEBATE ON THE 

" May our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve thee by the 
merits of his most holy passion. And I, by his authority, that of his blessed 
apostles, Peter and Pauf, and that of the most holy pope, granted and commit- 
ted to me in these parts, do absolve thee, first from all ecclesiastical censure, in 
whatever manner they have been incurred, then from all thy sins, transgres- 
sions, and excesses, how enormous soever they may be; even from such as are 
reserved for the cognizance of the holy see, and as far as the keys of the holy 
church extend. I remit to you all punishment which you deserve in purgatory 
on their account; and I restore you to the holy sacraments of the church, to the 
unity of the faithful, and to that innocence and purity which you possessed at 
baptism: so that when you die, the gates of punishment shall be shut, and the 
gates of paradise shall be opened; and if you shall not die at present, this grace 
shall remain in full force, when you are at the point of death. In the name of 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." [Controversy between Messrs. 
Hughes and Breckenridge, p. 243. 

All we have said with regard to the power and pretensions of Rome 
in granting indulgences, is substantiated, and more than substanti- 
ated by this document, for in anticipation of the future, even to death, 
and in death, the absolving power, or grace, was to continue. I will 
also add, the doctrine of the creed of pope Pius IV. 

44 The council' of Trent teaches that " whoever shall affirm that when the 
grace of justification is received, the offence of the penitent sinner is so forgiv- 
en, and the sentence of eternal punishment so reversed, that there remains no 
temporal punishment to be endured, before his entrance into the kingdom of 
heaven, either in this world, or in the future state in purgatory: let him be ac- 
cursed." Id. ib. same p. 

Perhaps we should also hear, in this place, the council of Trent: 

It is also an article of faith in the creed of Pius IV. " that the power of in- 
dulgences was left by Christ to his church, and that the use of them is very help- 
ful tj christian people." [Ground of Catholic Doc. p. 71. 72. 

Once more : 

Bellarmine, that great cardinal of the Roman Catholic church (to show that 
he died in the faith he willed half of his soul to the Virgin Mary and the other 
half to her son) — Bellarmine in his book on indulgences heads the second and 
third chapters thus: " That there exists a certain treasury in the church, which 
is the foundation of indulgences; that the church has the power of applying this 
treasury of satisfactions, and thus of granting indulgences." 

I will not branch out on this subject farther, unless the gentleman 
agrees to meet me on the facts and documents just now submitted. To 
prove the immoral tendency of such indulgences, would, indeed, be a 
work of supererogation, if such a work were at all possible. 

On the subject of transubstantiation, the creed of pope Pius IV. de- 
cides as follows : 

Article xvi. " I do also profess, that in the mass there is offered unto God a true, 
proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead; and that, in the 
most holy sacrament of the holy eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially, 
the body and blood, together with the soul and the divinity of our Lord Jesus 
Christ; and that there is a conversion made of the whole substance of the bread 
into the body, and of the whole substance of the wane into the blood; which 
conversion the holy Catholic church calls TRANSUBSTANTIATION." 

'•The church of Rome declares that, upon the priest's pronouncing these 
words, hoc est corpus meum, (this is my body,) the bread and wine in the eu- 
charist are instantly transubstantiated into the natural body and blood of Christ; 
the species or accidents only of the bread and wiue remaining. Christ is offered 
as often as the sacrifice of the mass is celebrated. Solitary masses, wherein the 
priest communicates alone, are approved and commended; and the council of 
Trent declares that whosoever saith they are unlawful and ought to be abrogat- 
ed or abolished, is accursed." [View of All Religions, compiled and selected 
from the best authorities by Thomas Robbins, minister of the gospel in east 
Windsor, Conn. Hartford 1826, p. 25. 

It is always right to attack a doctrine in the words of those who 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 277 

profess it. Every cardinal doctrine of the papacy can be traced to a 
certain period, when it became an element of the system. 

Monachism began to be taught by St. Anthony in the 4th century. 

Auricular confession in the 5th ; but was finally establiohed by In- 
nocent II f. early in the 13th century. 

Theoretical purgatory began to be spoken of from the Pagans and 
Jews in the 6th century; but did not obtain a fixed residence till in 
the council of Florence, it became an integral part of infallibility 
A. D. 1430. 

Early in the 7th century the idea of universal father, or pope ob- 
tained. 

In the 8th century, after many and various fortunes, images began 
to be set up; and in the 9th became an integral part of Roman Catho- 
licism. 

In the year 730, a council summoned by Leo. III. with only one 
dissenting vote, called the worship of images and relics idolatry. 

Celibacy among the clergy began to be canonical in the 11th cen- 
tury. 

In the 9th century, the doctrine of transubstantiation began to be 
talked of commonly ; but was made infallible by pope Innocent III. 
4th Lateran council. 

Scotus, of Roman Catholic memory, affirmed that it was not an 
article of faith before the Lateran council of 1215, and that it cannot 
be proved from scripture. Bellarmine, Book iii. chap. 23, on the Eu- 
charist, quotes Scotus as saying so, and admits, " though the scrip- 
tures quoted last above, seems clear to us, and ought to convince any 
man that is not forward ; yet, it may justly be doubted, whether it be 
so, (proved by scripture,) when the most learned and acute men, such 
as Scotus, in particular, held a contrary opinion." Cardinal Cajetan, 
Ochan, and bishop Fisher, cum multis aliis, held the same opinion. 

Among Protestants, the reason and authority of religious belief and 
practice, is, " Thus saith the Lord." It is not important to ascertain 
when any opinion or practice began, nor who introduced it ; but if it 
be not in the bible, no matter how ancient it may be. It wants apostolic 
sanction, for the apostles sanction only what was written and ordained 
before their death. St. Clement, and St. Ignatius, and St. Irenseus, 
and ail the other saints in the Roman calendar, were born too late to 
sanction any article of faith, or morals, by their vote. 

But a few words on transubstantiation. " A sacrament" says the 
church, " is an outward and visible sign of some inward and spiritual 
grace." Now, it cannot be both the sign and the thing signified. If, 
then, the Eucharist be a sacrament, it cannot be true that it is the 
body and blood of Christ transubstantiated. Rome ought, then, to 
strike it from her list of sacraments. 

But Jesus gave the eucharist for a sign, a keepsake, a memorial of 
his love. It is, then, a commemorative institution, as well as a sign 
of New Testament blessings : " Do this in remembrance of me." 
Like other tokens of love, it has inscribed upon it the name of the 
donor. As was said of the passover ; it is the Lord's passover .• so says 
Jesus, " this is my body," 

Now, as all words have a literal and figurative meaning, the only 
question here is, Are these words to be taken literally or figuratively 1 
If literally, some good reason must be offered : and what is itl Be- 
cause some father, pope, or council so decided 1 We must have the 



278 DEBATE ON THE 

reason which authorised them, else their decision is a mere assump- 
tion. 

Where shall that reason be found 1 Is it because Jesus always so 
speaks, that he must be thus understood ] Then I contend, that when 
he said, "I am the door" he was literally transubstantiated into a 
door ; and when he said, " I am the bread which came down from 
heaven," he was converted into bread; and when he said, "lam the 
true vine ," he was literally changed into a real vine. And why not] 
Is it more irrational, marvelous, incredible, than that " this loaf is 
my body," should mean that this loaf was converted into his body, 
and changed into flesh ; and that while the apostles were eating the 
loaf, they were eating the living flesh of him that stood before them 1 ! 
If, then, the bishop assumes a literal interpretation in the one case; I 
assume it in these and various other passages. For, if he may assume 
ad libitum, so may I; and so may every one else; and then what 
comes of the certainty of language 1 It is, then, without law, precedent, 
or authority, to assume the very point in debate ; and to say, that be- 
cause it reads this is my body, it means that bread is converted into flesh, 

This style, of the passage in dispute, is very common in both the 
Old and New Testaments. So early as the time of Joseph, we read 
" the seven good kine are seven years," — and " the seven good ears are 
seven years." What a. transubstantiation ! But change are into re- 
present, which is its meaning, in a thousand places, and all is plain. 

Again : says Jesus, " Destroy this temple," pointing to his body. 
44 The field is the world — the reapers are the angels." — Are these, 
also, transubstantiations ] Paul also speaks thus, when he says of the 
rock Horeb, 44 that rock ivas Christ." And John the apostle, " the 
seven stars are seven angels;" 44 the seven candlesticks are seven 
churches." And what is the difference between these phrases, and 
44 this is my body V — but finally on this part of the subject, Jesus 
said of the cup, 44 this cup is the New Testament." Does not that, 
on the bishop's premises, prove that the cup was changed into the 
New Testament? ! But, if by pronouncing over a loaf the words of 
consecration a priest has power to change bread into flesh, and wine 
into blood, he has, indeed, a power truly miraculous and divine ; and 
works as many miracles in the whole course of his life as he says 
masses. A claim to such a divine, supernatural, and extraordinary 
power, ought not to be claimed upon an arbitrary, capricious, and 
whimsical interpretation of a word ! Good reasons ought to be offered 
by any man, who passes himself on the community, as possessing 
power equal to quickening the dead and suspending the laws of nature. 

Once more, for the present : If, you believe the priest and receive 
the bread as flesh, you never after can with reason believe your own 
senses : for, when your eye declares it bread, and your senses of 
smelling, tasting, feeling, and I might add, your hearing — all declare 
that it is still bread and not flesh — If, I say, you can, contrary to your 
own senses, which God has given you as the means of knowledge 
and certainty, thus implicitly believe the declaration of a priest; you 
are disqualified for reasoning, for believing the christian religion, or 
your own senses on any subject of which they are witnesses. So 
that it may be truly said, he that believes in transubstantiation, can 
rationally believe in nothing else. All the christian miracles, were 
to be believed — not because they were contrary to the evidence of 
sense ; but because they were in accordance with that evidence. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 279 

I cannot argue this point with any sort of ability. I cannot feel in 
earnest. I seem to myself as if I were reasoning against a thing 
which no person believed ; and I never could with any sort of spirit, 
discuss a matter, unless there was some little show of plausibility, 
or shadow of reason in it. The doctrine of transubstantiation is so 
absurd, that I do not know that I ever read a tract through against it in 
my life. But this subject gives such glory to the priests and has 
wrought such miracles upon the superstitious crowd, that it is worth 
more to sustain the priesthood, than all the other six Roman sacra- 
ments. And that which causes this most incredible of all things, to 
be devoured by such multitudes is, that it expiates sin. Hence the 
body of Christ is daily eaten by hundreds of thousands, as a sin of- 
fering together with " his soul and divinity," as decided by the coun- 
cil of Trent ! The Messiah is then always suffering, always bleed- 
ing, always dying, always expiating sin by the sacrifice of himself; 
and his people are always literally devouring his flesh ! What a pic- 
ture !! I shall turn away from it ; for my soul sickens at the thought. 

Protestants know that the sin of forgetfulness is the easily beset- 
ting sin of mortals ; and that they need commemorative institutions. 
Hence, they highly appreciate the honor of having a Lord's table, a 
Lord's supper, a holy communion and fellowship, through these sa- 
cred emblems of a Savior's love. " The loaf, which we break," says 
the apostle, " is it not the communion of the body of Christ 1 The 
cup over which we give thanks, is it not the communion, or the joint 
participation of his blood ?" — Hence, the New Testament with its 
spiritual and heavenly blessings is always contemplated, realized, and 
remembered with holy thankfulness in the christian assemblies, while 
they partake of the sacred emblems of that great sacrifice "once of- 
fered for the sins of many. For by one offering up of himself, he has 
forever perfected them who are sanctified." 

Having yet remaining a few minutes, I shall prepare the way for 
the introduction of my seventh proposition. Having touched at the 
roots of all the principal corruptions, and having yet heard nothing in 
reply, I will anticipate that proposition with a few remarks on the pa- 
pistical notion of a judge of controversy. 

The council of Trent decreed " that the oral traditions of the Cath- 
olic church," (meaning the Roman) " are to be received, pari pietatis 
qffectu ac reverentia suscipit ac veneratur, — with equal piety and rever- 
ence as the books of the Old and New Testament." — Council of Trent 
4th session. 

Then she asserts : " It belongs to the church to judge of the true 
sense and interpretation of scripture ; and that no person shall dare 
to interpret it in matters relating to faith and manners to any sense 
contrary to that which the church has held, or contrary to the unani- 
mous consent of the fathers." — lb. Id. 

And according to the 23rd article of the creed of pope Pius IV. 
11 1 do acknowledge the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman church 
to be the mother and mistress of all churches ; and I do promise and 
swear true obedience to the bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, 
the prince of the apostles, and the vicar of Christ." 

Here then, we have the essential elements of mental slavery and 
degradation : for, if no person dare to interpret the Scriptures contra- 
ry to what the church has already held, or to the unanimous consent 
of the Fathers ; where is that liberty of thought and speech and ac« 



280 DEBATE ON THE 

tion, on the most important of all subjects, our moral and religious re- 
lations, without which, liberty is without meaning, and 'mental inde- 
pendence but a name 1 

In all monarchies, save that of Rome and Mahomet, a judge is not 
constitutionally a judge of his own case. But the Roman judge of 
controversy is the whole church, says my learned opponent, and her 
councils affirm with him. The whole church judging then between 
what parties'? Herself and the heretics !! What a righteous, infal- 
lible and republican judge, is the supreme judge of controversy in the 
Catholic church ! The controversy is between two parties— the church, 
or the clergy, on one side ; and the heretics or the reformers on the 
other, as they may happen to be called ; say the church and the here- 
tics. And who is umpire, who is supreme judge of both ] One of 
the parties, indeed, the church herself! This is the archetype — the ' 
beau ideal, of civil liberty, and republican government, in the supreme 
Roman hierarchy. It will not help it to place the ermine on the pope. 
He is that instant exparte judge. And besides, he is executive of 
the church. If the pope is to be judge, and executive, and lawgiver, 
in the case as he frequently is, what a splendid picture of a republi 
can president or judge have we got in the Roman church ! 

This ghostly despotism is to be sustained and defended too, by th« 
whole church, by vows, oaths, and pledges, the most solemn and bind 
ing that religion can suggest, or human ingenuity devise. It is true she 
governs by her bishops. The popes make bishops, on the recommen- 
dation of bishops, and these bishops serve the pope and govern the 
people. Their oath, which is the same in all countries, 1 will now 
read, — so far at least, as relates to this matter. I have the original, 
and different translations of it, and if it be disputed, I am prepared to 
sustain it. To reconcile it to the genius of our institutions, and to the 
safety and happiness of our country, will require the explanations and 
reasonings of my friend. 

"I, N. elect of the church of N. from henceforward will be faithful and obe- 
dient to St. Peter the Apostle, and to the holy Roman church, and to our lord, 
the lord N. Pope N. and his successors, canonically coming in. I will neither 
advise, consent, or do any thing- that they may lose life or member, or that their 
persons may be seized, or hands any wise laid upon them, or any injuries offered 
to them, under any pretence whatsoever. The counsel which they shall intrust 
to me withal, by themselves, their messengers, or letters, I will not knowingly 
reveal to any to their prejudice. I will help them to defend and keep the Ro- 
man papacy, and the royalties of St. Peter, saving my order, against all men. The 
legate of the apostolic see, going and coming, I will honorably treat and help 
in his necessities. The rights, honors, privileges, and authority of the holy Ro- 
man church of our Lord the Pope, and his foresaid successors, I will endeavor 
to preserve, defend, increase, and advance. *I will not be in any counsel, action, 
or treaty, in which shall be plotted against our said lord, and the said Roman 
church, any thing to the hurt or prejudice of their persons, right, honor, state, 
or power; and if I shall know any such thing to be treated or agitated by any 
whatsoever, I will signify it to our said lord, or to some other by whom it may 
come to his knowledge. The rules of the holy Fathers, the apostolic decrees, 
ordinances, or disposals, reservations, provisions, and mandates, I will observe 
with all my might, and cause to be observed by others. Heretics, schismatics, 
and rebels to our said lord, or his foresaid successors, I will to my utmost power 
persecute and oppose." 

The Latin of the last sentence of which reads : 

44 Hereticos, ?chismaticos, et rebelles, eideni domino nostro vel successoribus 
prcedictis pro posse persequar et impugnabo." — [Pontificale Roman. Edit. Ant- 
werp. A. D. 1656. 

Here then is the most solemn pledge and vow given by every bishop 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 281 

of Rome, that he will to the utmost of his power persecute and destroy 
heretics and schismatics ! Does not this indisputable fact, alone, sus- 
tain my seventh proposition, and prove that the genius of the Latin 
church is anti-American and essentially opposed to the existence of all 
free institutions'? [Time expired.] 

Half past 10 o'clock, A. M. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

You perceive, my friends, that there is scarcely a single tenet of the 
Roman Catholic faith, which my friend has not brought into view 
this morning. How then am I to escape the charge of desultoriness, 
in following such an argument 1 The whole category, from Alpha to 
Omega, shoots up before me, shifting with the rapidity of lightning. 
It is the necessary effect of the confusion of my learned friend's ideas, 
and of the order in which he arranged the propositions whose discus- 
sion was to call them forth. The very first of these propositions — the 
first word of it — Holy — would have called up for discussion all we 
have heard on the immorality of the church. As my friend thought 
fit to commence as he has done, order and method continue to be ex- 
iled from this debate. He selected the points of attack and the plan of 
campaign ; let him not charge on me his own blunders, which he sees 
now, too late. There was one great question which he should have 
determined, a limine ,• it would have cut off all this desultory argu- 
mentation. It is this. Did Jesus Christ establish an infallible tribu- 
nal to determine the meaning of scripture 1 If so, we are bound by its 
decisions. If not, the whole Catholic religion falls to the ground. 
Now, my friends, I endeavored to prove that Christ did establish such 
a tribunal, and I defy any one to bring from the Bible proof to the 
contrary. One text alone is sufficient to put this matter at rest for 
ever. " The church is the pillar and ground of the truth." I began 
to enforce my argument, when my time expired, and my friend seemed 
unwilling to let slip the opportunity, but got up immediately, and said 
that my last observations of yesterday were unworthy of notice. 

He brought as a parallel to the words, " I am with you all days even 
to the end of the world," the customary ancient salutation, " the Lord be 
with you ;" and argued from this, that Christ's words mean no more than 
that ! But, my friends, what point of comparison is there between the 
words, " God be with you," which one frail man addresses to another, 
and the words, the solemn promises of the Savior, commissioning his 
apostles to preach his gospel, and cheering their despondency by the 
divine assurance, " Behold, I am with you all days even to the end of 
the world V* Are the two cases the same 1 Are we not more sure 
that Christ is with his church forever, than we are of the effect of the 
salutation of a poor fallible man 1 What Christ does is infallible ; 
what he says will come to pass. If his church was to fail, we should 
have had an assurance to that effect in the Bible. There is none. If 
his church was to fail, we should have had miraculous displays like 
that of Sinai, and of the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, mark- 
ing the commencement of a new era. Or Christ would have come 
again upon earth, rebuked and banished error, and restored the primi- 
tive lustre and beauty of truth. This has not been done, nor has such 
a prophecy been any where made. As Christ, by one oblation, has 
perfected those that were to be sanctified for ever ; so has he by one 
v 2 36 



282 DEBATE ON THE 

Tevelation, assured us of divine truth in religion for ever. The work 
of God then, needed no reformation. If men's morals were bad, they 
should have been corrected, but religion should not have been changed. 
In a word, as Bishop Smith of Kentucky, has so well said, " Reform- 
ation should have taken place in the church, not out of it." Let my 
friend twist the words of Christ as he pleases, he can find nothing like 
them in human language. Christ was God and his word is what it 
purports to be. He is with his church all days, until the consumma- 
tion of ages. The heavens and the earth may pass away, but his 
word will never pass away. The worse we become, the more refrac- 
tory and insubordinate, the farther from apostolic times and fervor and 
purity, the more need have we of authority to control us. So that the 
power of the church to maintain unity of faith, which Christ so much de- 
sired for his disciples, is, at least, as necessary now as it has ever been. 
The necessity of submitting to the church does hot destroy liberty, 
while, on the contrary, the sources of error and contentions, among 
sects which undertake to judge for themselves, are endlessly multi- 
plied. Christ foresaw the time when even the apostles would dis- 
pute. He knew the itching of the Greeks for novelty, and their prone- 
ness to disputation — always learning and never coming to the truth — 
tearing down to-day, and building up to-morrow : one wave of error 
and doubt following another, and w r ashing away every doctrine, and 
creed, and sect, in its turn ; and he therefore said : " Hear the church." 

My friend argued in the commencement of this controversy, that 
since there were as good men among Protestants as among Catholics, 
why should there be any argument? Let him answer that question 
since he is the challenger. I cheerfully admit the fact, but what is 
the inference ? Why that those Protestants were better than their 
principles. Every man who follows out the Protestant principles may 
be bad. He may find his own code of morals as well as his doctrinal 
code, in the Bible. Because if he choose to interpret the Bible for 
himself, in morals as well as in faith, he may argue from it in favor of 
the lawfulness of any thing he pleases. And is it not true that certain vi- 
cious acts are done by some men on the pretence of their being allowed 
by scripture? I could adduce hundreds of instances of the strong and 
terrible delusions and crimes, for which their victims persuaded them- 
selves they found a sanction in the Bible. And if the sincerely pious, 
the humane and charitable of Protestant communions ask them- 
selves the question: " are the virtues I strive to practice, the fruits of 
my religion?" they would find that their peculiar tenets have no in- 
fluence on their conduct. Their piety and the purity of their morals 
are the effects of naturally good dispositions, of virtuous associations, 
of principles, which they hold in common with Catholics, a reverence 
for the divinity and a desire for future happiness, a sense of honor, de- 
corum, propriety, &c. 

In this kind cf virtue even pagans have been eminent, but their 
virtue is no proof of the goodness of their religion. Aristides was 
just, Scipio chaste, Regulus patriotic, Plato sober, Cincinnati^ 
unambitious, Titus, the delight of the human race, and Antoninus, 
pious — and yet they were all idolaters ! There are, thank heaven, con- 
servative principles in man's bosom, which correct in conduct, what 
is wrong in principle. But if we sincerely desire to know the fruits 
of the reformation, we have only to ssk its authors, Hear, then, what 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 283 

Luther was compelled to acknowledge upon this subject. " We see," 
says he, in his sermon the 2nd Sunday in Advent, " that through the 
malice of the Devil, men are now more avaricious, mere cruel, mere 
disorderly, more insolent, and much more wicked, than they were 
under popery." '* If any one wish, says Musculus, to see a multitude 
of knaves, disturbers of the public peace, &c. let him go to a city, where 
the gospel is preached in its purity, (he means a reformed city) for 
it is clearer than the light of day, that there never were pagans 
more vicious and disorderly, than these professors of the gospel. '' 
44 The thing," says Melancthon, " speaks for itself in this country 
among the reformed ; their whole time is devoted to intemperance and 
drunkenness, (immanibus poculis). So deeply are the people sunk 
into barbarity and ignorance, that many of them would imagine they 
should die in the night, if they should chance to fast in the day." 
Ad capt. vi. Mat. Neither was the growth of vice and ignorance con- 
fined to Germany. They grew wherever the seeds of the reformation 
were permitted to take root. " In this nation" (England) says Stubbs, 
after he had made the tour of the island, " I found a general decay of 
good toorks, or rather a plain defection, or falling aivay from God." 
(Motives to good works, An. 1596.) But hear how the eloquent 
Erasmus describes the fruits of the reformation. He was indeed a 
Catholic, but a Catholic whom the Protestants allow to have been 
impartial. He was an eye and ear witness to the* introduction and 
progress of the reformation, observed its workings with the eye of a 
philosopher, and has marked them down with the accuracy of a can- 
did and correct historian. " And who," he says, " are the gospel 
people 1 Look around you and. shew me any who has become a bet- 
ter man. Show me one who, once a glutton, is now turned sober, one 
who, before violent, is now meek ; one who, before avaricious, is 
now generous; one who, before impure, is now chaste; — I can point 
out multitudes, who have become far worse than they were before. In 
their assemblies, you never see any of them heave a sigh ; shed a 
tear ; or strike his breast, even on the days that are sacred to affliction. 
Their discourses are little else, but calumnies against the priesthood. 
They have abolished confession, and few of then confess their sins 
even to God. They have abrogated fasting; and they wallow in 
sensuality. They have become Epicureans, for fear of being Jews. 
They have cast off the yoke of human institutions ; and along with 
it, they have shaken off the Lord. So far from being submissive to 
bishops, they are disobedient to the civil magistrates. What tumults 
and seditions mark their conduct! For what trifles do they fly to 
arms ! St. Paul commanded the first christians to shun the society 
of the wicked ; and behold ! the reformers seek most the society of 
the most corrupted. These are their delight. The gospel now flourish- 
es forsooth ! because priests and monks take wives in opposition to 
human laws and despite of their sacred vows. Own it is folly to ex- 
change evils for- evils, and madness to exchange small evils for great 
ones." Ep. 47. Lib. 31. John Wesley says, speaking of his own 
time not one hundred and fifty years ago, " A dissipated age (such 
as is the present perhaps beyond all that ever were, at least that are 
recorded in history) is an age wherein God is generally forgotten. 
And a dissipated nation, (such as England is at present, in a superla- 
tive degree) is a nation, a vast majority of which has not God 5 in all 
their thoughts.' W"e therefore speak an unquestionable truth, whea 



284 DEBATE Or* THE 

we say, there is not on the face of the earth another nation (at least 
that we have ever heard of) so perfectly dissipated and ungodly ; not 
only so totally without God in the world, but so openly setting him 
at defiance. There never was an age, that we read of in history, since 
Julius Caesar, since Noah, since Adam, wherein dissipation or un- 
godliness did so generally prevail, both among high and low, rich and 
poor." Neither would it be well in a Protestant, in order to apologise 
for the disorders, which I have mentioned, to say — " that they were 
only the accidental evils of a moment, evils of a period of change 
and fermentation." What ! the first fruits of a reformation disorder ! 
— the first fruits of a system of piety licentiousness ! — the first fruits 
of the reestablishment of the law of truth, impiety ! Surely such an 
apology, and yet it is often made, is absolutely weak ! There are multi- 
plied attestations of it. " Miserable" says Neal, speaking of the time 
of Elizabeth, and when the fermentations of the revolutionary vio- 
lence of the reformation had subsided, " miserable and heathenish was 
the condition of the country in regard to religion" That you may 
form some notion of their condition, hear in what manner the inhabi- 
tants of London, in a petition presented to the parliament during this 
reign, express themselves. " In one half our churches," they say, " we 
have watchmen that have no eyes ; and clouds that have no water ; 
and in the other half, there is scarcely one tenth man that takes con- 
science to wait on his charge. Whereby, the Lord's day is often to- 
tally neglected ; ignorance increaseth, and wickedness cometh upon 
us like an armed man." " In the county of Cornwall," Neal says, 
" there were at this period a hundred and forty clergymen, not one of 
whom could preach a sermon." The situation of other counties was 
nearly similar. Judge of the consequences. I have here the authen- 
tic documents, Luther's and" Wesley's, works, to prove what I have 
cited. Here is the great father of the reformation ; with Melancthon 
at his side, both very unghostly looking personages, on their knees, be- 
fore an image of the crucifix !! (Holds up a large and old volume, and 
describes a circle, with his person, exhibiting the pictured title page, at 
which there was continued laughter.) This edition was published by 
Lawrence Schenck at Wittemberg, in 1561. Here is image worship 
by Martin Luther and his co-reformer ! and beasts, and monsters all 
around them. Mr. C. says that the popes might have been much 
worse men than he has described them. That bad acts are soon for- 
gotten, and good ones more apt to be chronicled. This is, unfortu- 
nately, not the case, as history but too well attests. The virtues are too 
unobtrusive to attract public notice, and Shakspeare, who was a 
close observer of human nature, says : If I can quote him correctly ; 

"The evil, that men do, lives after them ; 

The good is oft interred with their bones." 
I am sorry to say, my friends, Professor Biggs informs me, that 
want of time has prevented him from examining the works of Liguori, 
in reference to my opponent's accusation, based upon this book. There 
is a gentleman of learning and integrity, in this city, who is not a Ca- 
tholic, Mr. Alexander Kinmont, who will devote some time to it, and 
who will be here at half-past four, P. M. and give us the requisite in- 
formation. I again say, I hope a large audience will be present at the 
denouement. My friend told us he slurred over what was worst in the 
charges against Catholics. He has taken a new mode of doing this. 
He has, indeed, said the worst, and helps it by a vague, but not a slur- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 235 

ring insinuation, that there is more. His translation would make the 
fallen priests' sin as bad as that of the Corinthian that afflicted by his 
scandalous crime the fervent christians of antiquity, instead of being 
of a different and less heinous kind. I appreciate his motive?. The 
charge is, as I have already stated — the church punishes severely for 
the slightest fault, and excommunicates the impenitent offender, giving 
him up to the civil tribunal, for the punishment, in such cases, inflicted 
in some countries by the law of the land. 

He says, we find from the decrees of councils, that scandal has 
existed in the church. It is true; and it is also true that Christ pre- 
dicted its existence. What is the world but the theatre of falsehood 
and truth 1 a field of tares and wheat ! 

As for the other volume which the gentleman has brought up, the 
Secreta Monita of the Jesuits, I pronounce it an infamous forgery. It 
has been proved a hundred times, that no priest had any hand in that 
document. " The Monita Secreta, or private instructions, a publica- 
tion sometimes brought forward against the Jesuits," says the learned 
Charles Butler, of Lincoln's Inn, " is a most infamous work, and 
wholly beneath notice. Neither the original, nor any certified copy 
of this work, was ever produced; no circumstances respecting its dis- 
covery, ever proved ; no collateral fact, to establish its authenticity, 
ever published. There does not live the Jesuit, or the scholar of a 
Jesuit, who, if any one of the doctrines which it inculcates, or any 
one practice which it recommends, were proposed to him, would not 
spurn it with indignation." Francis Xavier was a Jesuit ; our first 
archbishop, Carroll, was a Jesuit; they were both worthy of being 
numbered among the best of men, and it was true, not forged, instruc- 
tions that made them so. The copy of this notorious slander, on one 
of the most virtuous, learned, and apostolic societies that have ever 
existed, the gentleman informs us, was brought to this country from 
France by the secretary of La Fayette ! and what was the religion of 
this secretary 1 A Jacobin, an infidel, one of the anti-christian con- 
spirators, that would have blotted all denominations of the followers 
of Jesus, as well as the Catholic, from the whole world 1 By priests, 
it it well known, that such men meant ministers of every creed; 
and against all, but chiefly against those best able by learning and 
virtue to confound them, was their hostility directed. 

A greater than La Fayette, as a statesman, I mean Thomas Jeffer- 
son, said of the Presbyterians, — " Their ambition and tyranny would 
tolerate no rival if they had power. The Presbyterian clergy are the 
loudest, the most intolerant, of all sects, the most tyrannical and am- 
bitious; ready at the word of the lawgiver, if such a word could now 
be obtained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin 
hemisphere the flames in which their oracle, £ Calvin, consumed the 
poor Servetus, because he could not subscribe the proposition of Cal- 
vin, that magistrates have a right to exterminate all heretics to the 
Calvinistic creed. They pant to re-establish by law, that Holy Inqui- 
sition, which they can now only infuse into public opinion." p. 322, 
letter to William Short. Will my friend take this testimony to the 
letter! Jefferson had more opportunities for judging than La Fayette, 
and he knew this country better. But, sir, I agree with La Fayette, 
that all prints are to be dreaded in this sense ; that none of them should 
be allowecPa particle of political ascendency in this country. Our 



286 DEBATE ON THE 

main clanger is from ambitious priests of various denominations. When 
they confine themselves to their only sphere of usefulness, they are 
the best friends of mankind ; when they depart from it, the worst ty- 
rants of the darkest ages of Paganism were not more intolerant than 
they. A hyena is a lamb, to a minister of Christ, who casts off the 
livery and the peaceful spirit of his master, and turns round to denounce 
and abuse his fellow-men for obeying the sacred dictates of conscience, 
and adhering to a religion, which, no matter how much persecuted and 
calumniated, they believe to be divine. I could say much more on this 
subject, but it is not the most suitable time. 

The charge has been made against all denominations, but my oppo- 
nent has singled from among them the Catholic, and made it the 
scape-goat, to bear the sins of all to oblivion. I must however re- 
mind the audience that the Methodist conference, held, not so many 
years ago, at Baltimore, denounced the Episcopalians, for contempla- 
ting an alliance with England, to subvert the liberties of this coun- 
try ; and alleged what they conceived to be no mean proof of trea- 
sonable designs on the part of the, then, obnoxious Episcopalians. 
This proscriptive spirit is as old as Christianity. History informs 
us that the inoffensive disciples of Jesus Christ, even in the golden 
age of the apostles, were accused, convicted, and put to the most hor- 
rible death, precisely on the charge of hating all mankind" odio hu- 
mani generis convicti sunt. Tacitus Annal. lib. xv. This celebra- 
ted historian terms the christians " sontes, reos, novissima exempla 
meritos — perflagitia invisos," and calls their religion itself " exitialis 
superstitio." They were, consequently, dressed in the skins of wild 
beasts, and thus caricatured, the Pagans set their dogs upon them. 
Jesus Christ, himself, when the Jews could convict him of no crime, 
was charged by them with not being a friend to Caesar, — Pilate, who 
i found no fault'' in Christ, was willing to release him, but the Jews 
cried out, " if thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend ;" 
that moment the just one sank, oppressed beneath the malice and slan- 
der of his enemies ! We, as his disciples, can expect no better fate 
than our master's. He foretold all that now befalls us. " Blessed 
are you," says he, " when men shall revile you and persecute you, 
and speak all manner of evil against you, untruly, for my sake : be glad 
and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven." St. Matth. 
V. 11, 12. 

We have, the gentleman says, no authentic translation of the scrip- 
tures. This is not true. We have a Latin translation, the vulgate. 
That is one authentic translation. We have, moreover, an approved 
translation in the vernacular, sanctioned by all the bishops in the 
United States, and for sale in every city in the union. But if, by an 
authentic bible, we mean one perfectly immaculate, in point of typo- 
graphical execution and mechanical neatness, I ask the gentleman, 
can he pretend that any Pretestant denomination has such a one % 
Yet my friend says, notwithstanding the facts I quoted yesterday 
morning, respecting a new bible, that they have a bible that is suffi- 
cient. If that is the case, where is the use of a new translation ! He 
speaks of Sixtus' and Clement's bible. That only shews that the 
popes never taught that their personal opinions were to be received, 
as articles of faith, as my friend would persuade us truMtdid. Pri- 
vate authority should not presume- to alter the authorised version. 
This was the amount of the prohibition. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 287 

Now to post the books with my friend on the subject of the bible, 
I ask him if he was not infatuated, for I really cannot call it by any 
other name, when he said he could show us a bible never soiled by 
the thumb of a monk, and took us right into the midst of twenty two 
monasteries, on mount Athos,/or the proof? Home in his Introduction 
to the study of the Bible, vol. 1. p. 222, quotes Oudin and Michaelis, 
for the opinion that it was written by an Aecmet — and written too, say 
Burber and Wetstein, for a church or a monastery. Home says the Aec- 
mets were a class of monks in the ancient church, who flourished partic- 
ularly in the east in the fifth century. They were so called, because 
they had divine service performed without interruption, in their 
churches. They divided themselves into three bodies, each of which 
officiated in turn, and relieved the other so that their churches were 
never silent either night or day. This very Mss. Codex Alexandrinus, 
in the British Museum, contains a list of the Psalms sung by these 
monks ! 

My friend says that our getting the bible from monks, does not 
leave us beholden to them for its spirit. This is a disingenuous eva- 
sion. I did not say that it did, but this last question belongs to quite 
another category. My opponent says that the bible, like the universe, 
must testify to its own divine origin — it is the work of .God. In this 
he is completely at issue with one of the most enlightened Protestants 
of the day, bishop Smith, of Kentucky. " These christians," says 
the bishop, in his review of Van Dyck on christian union, " have done 
well in agreeing upon those sound principles of investigation which 
lead them to substantial, and sufficient agreement, what the canon of 
scripture is. The principle is correct, and therefore all honest minds 
rest satisfied, in the same results. Abandon the question of the one- 
ness of the bible, to be agitated and kept afloat on the perturbed 
ocean of expedience, as the question is, respecting the oneness of the 
church, and very soon we should have amongst us almost as many 
books claiming to be bibles, as we have sects claiming to be churches. 
And what are the laws of evidence, guided by which, all christians 
come to such a desirable agreement as to the canon of the scripture T 
Do we settle that grave point by appeals to the scripture alone ? Do 
we require a " thus saith the Lord," for the admission of any book 
within the compass of the bible?" Ay, this is the question, do we 
take up the bible from the shelf, and putting it to our ear, ask it what 
it has to say for itself? If Ave do, we shall lay it aside without re- 
ceiving the desired answer, pretty much as the Indian chief did, when 
the Spanish missionary handed him the good book. — " It says noth- 
ing," said the Indian. How then shall we proceed in this investiga- 
tion 1 " We select," says bishop Smith, " some period of christian 
antiquity by universal consent anterior to great corruptions, and that 
we may be safe, anterior to great causes tending to corruption ; the 
year 300 for example, prior to the conversion of Constantine; or the 
year 250, when the documents of the then existing Christianity were 
abundant ; or the year 200, when men were living who had conversed 
with the disciples of John, and we ask, what books were received by 
christians, every where, and with one consent, as sacred books ; and 
these, and no others, we admit into our canon. Then with the ut- 
most care jk look into every previous writer, for concurring or for op- 
posing ev^Knce. Finding every thing nearly clear and satisfactory, 
we repair to the books of the New Testament themselves for acci- 



268 DEBATE ON THE 

dental and internal evidence, to endorse for and confirm the whole. 
And here we rest satisfied that we have grasped the truth." 

How will the champion of Protestantism extricate himself from 
this dilemma 1 Dees he confess his ignorance of the leading doctrines 
of eminent PrGtestant divines ] They find a unanimous consent. 

He talks cf two great lies ! I like strong language, but this is such 
as Milton's Satan would have better used, than a professing christian. 
How Jews and Infidels* will triumph, when assured by my opponent 
that Christ's preaching and miracles, so signally failed, that thelargest 
body of christians in the entire world, have been based upon two great 
lies, since the year 250, or about that period! Take away the 
2,000,000 Catholic and Greek christians that believe in these two 
great truths, and think it blasphemy to call them lies, and what be- 
comes of the few stragglers that remain in the valleys of the Alps, 
or where you please — the 4i rari nantes in gurgite v&stu?" Did Christ 
expend all his labor, all his blood, to give mankind, one kind of 
idolatry for another ] Credat Judasus. 

Now, my friends, dispossess your minds cf prejudice; forget your 
religious education, if possible; take up the Bible, and see if it be 
wholly silent upon these two great truths, not lies. For 2, or 3,000,000 
who have not all lost their reason, adhere to these divine doctrines, 
which they find in this blessed volume. I speak unto you as wise 
and pious men. Judge you, yourselves, and do not let others judge for 
you, what I sa)^. I quote the Bible which you all admit, as I have 
hitherto quoted Protestant authority, which you admit on all cases, to 
be not over friendly to Roman Catholic doctrines. I disdained to avail 
myself of the weeds which you threw over your garden walls, I mean im- 
moral and degraded ministers, as my opponent has done with discarded 
priests, to cast your doctrine with them. With such, we hold no fel- 
lowship. The pure of life, the men of honor and of learning, whom 
we receive from your ranks, we cherish. From the Bible, then, the 
fathers, the most eminent Protestants, I shall select my proofs, that, 
on these two imputed lies, the Catholic church, like St. Paul, so Christ 
is her witness, speaks the truth in righteousness. 

To begin from the Bible. If there is a single tenet of christian 
iaith, clearly established in the Bible, I' contend that it is the real 
presence of Jesus Christ, in the adorable sacrament of the Eucharist. 
And if we cannot take in the literal sense, the words of Christ, 
" This is my body ; This is my blood," the plainest that God or man 
could utter, but must adopt, instead of this, some one cf the two 
thousand meanings, invented by the sacramentarians, and the anti- 
sacramentarians, for this text, we may bid adieu to the doctrine of the 
intelligibility of scripture. I distinguish two principal epochs in the 
Gospel narrative; the first, when Jesus Christ promises to give us his 
body and blood in the Eucharist ; the second, when he gives them to 
us. Before announcing his desire of bequeathing to the world this 
divine legacy, as we read in the 6th chapter of the Gospel of St. John, 
he wrought a splendid miracle, even the feeding of 5000, with a few 
loaves, in the wilderness, to prove himself the God whom the heavens 
and the earth obey, and thus conciliate the faith of the multitude in 
the divinity of his mission, and the truth of his doctrines. He speaks 
of the absolute necessity of this faith — of its scarcity, and expressly 
declares that the sight of his miracles, or the testimonyijf the sense, 
cannot beget faith. In a word, that no man can come to him, unless 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 289 

his father draw him. He then continues his divine instructions, by 
alluding to the miracle which he had wrought, in which was a most 
striking resemblance to the greater miracle which he designed to 
work, viz. the multiplication of his own body and blood, for the daily, 
the super-substantial bread, or food, of men, with whom, as he else- 
where assures us, in scripture, it is his delight to dwell. He reminds 
his hearers of all the wonders wrought in their favor, in the old Law, 
shews them ail the wisdom, the power, the love of Heaven, displayed 
in their behoof, from the commencement of their history ; how dear 
they were to God, and further and better gifts, which, if want of faith op- 
posed no obstacle, so many divine pledges gave them a right to antici- 
pate. The greatest of Kings, even Solomon, in all his glory, had 
nothing better to give them than gold and silver, a city, a tract of land. 
No earthly king can compete with God, in conferring benefits. This 
the history of the Jews sufficiently attested ; and the miracle of the 
loaves brought affectingly to their minds, what their fathers had told 
them, what the}r, themselves, had read in the testimony, of the manna 
or miraculous bread, which, for so many years had been showered 
down from heaven, to feed their ancestors in the desert. They were 
thus prepared for all that God could accomplish to show his excess of 
love. They whom his father called, who are taught of God, hear with 
faith ; they whom his father called not, hear with incredulousness, 
while he thus announces his own intended benefactions. 

" This is the bread which came down from heaven. If any eat ©f 
this bread, he shall live forever ; and the bread that I will give is my 
flesh for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among 
themselves, saying, " how can this man give us his flesh to eat ?" 
Then Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, except you eat 
the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have 
life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath 
everlasting life ; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh 
is meat indeed ; and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my 
flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the 
living Father sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, 
the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down 
from Heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead ; he 
that eateth this bread shall live forever.' These things he said, teach- 
ing in the synagogue at Capernaum. Many, therefore, of his disci- 
ples, hearing it, said, this is a hard saying, and who can hear it? 
But Jesus knowing, in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, 
said to them, ' doth this scandalize you 1 If then, you shall see the 
Son of man ascend up where he was before ? It is the spirit that 
quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing. But there are some of you 
that believe not.' For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were 
that did not believe, and who he was that would betray him. And he 
said, 4 therefore no man can come to me unless it be given him by my 
Father.' After this many of his disciples went back, and walked no 
more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve, will you, also go 
away? And Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? 
thou hast the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and know 
that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered them, 
' have not I chosen you twelve, and one of y ou is a devil.' Now he 
meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for this same was about to 
betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve." 

Z 37 



290 DEBATE ON THE 

We have here a continuous argument, and faith and infidelity, pic- 
tured to the life ; murmuring at impossibilities then, as well as now, 
rebuked by the Savior, and acquiescence in his word and his love, by 
Peter, as the first believer of the divinity of the Son of God — of his 
real presence in the Eucharist. If he spoke figuratively, would he 
have suffered his disciples, who understood the reality , to leave him ; 
he who came to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel 1 Would 
he have suffered all his disciples to perish, rather than tell them this 
single fact, that they misunderstood him 1 If he spoke of a figurative 
presence, the words, " how can you believe when you see the Son of 
man, ascending up to Heaven, where he was before" would have had no 
sense. In the Catholic view of the Eucharist, it is divinely strong. 
*If you cannot believe, now, that my flesh and blood are visible, pal- 
pable objects of every sense, that I can give them to you for food, 
how much less can you believe it, when you see the Son of Man as- 
cending up to Heaven, &c. The flesh surely profiteth nothing to un- 
derstand this mystery — it requires the faith and the spirit of faith, to 
impose silence on the senses, and say, with St. Peter, " Lord, to whom 
should we go— Thou hast the words of eternal life." This is the 
bread which strengthens us to live put successive ages. This is not 
an immoral doctrine. It elevates man to know that he is thus loved. 
That he is of a holy race, a purchased people, a royal priesthood, 
the especial object of incessant wonders. That he beholds God with 
him, Immanuel, in Bethlehem, house of bread, hid beneath the sacra- 
mental veil, but destined, and prepared by this nourishment, to enjoy 
him hereafter, without a veil, in the rich effulgence of the beatific 
vision. [Time expired.] 

Half past 1 1 o'clock, A. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

My opponent in commencing observed, that almost the whole circle 
of Catholic tenets came in review in my last speech. If such be an 
error, whose fault is it 1 I have no respondent. How many hours has 
the gentleman spent in reading against time, without any relevancy 
to the questions at issue, or to the proposition before us. And 
when he does reply, it is frequently to something said a day or two 
ago. 

I selected two points yesterday afternoon as comprehending the 
substance of the error opposed in my fifth proposition, and even to the 
present moment he has not presumed to meet me on these vital mat- 
ters to discuss them. In my last speech, 1 therefore not only recapitu- 
lated some important items ; but argued one or two specifications, in 
proof of the proposition legally before us. I also introduced in part my 
seventh proposition, and so far discussed its bearings as to show the 
anti-American, and anti-Republican theories of the Latin church. 

The bishop has, indeed, this time, selected the doctrine of transub- 
stantiation : but has he adverted to the various points of argument I 
have made 1 Ought he not, at least, to have glanced at these points, 
in order ] 

1. The incongruity of the idea of a sacrament with that of transub- 
stantiation. 

2. The unreasonableness of preferring the literal to the figurative, in 
the interpretation of a phrase common in scripture, which in no other 
case is so interpreted by the party themselves. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 291 

3. The arrogance of the priests in assuming the power of working 
miracles, for the sake of a forced interpretation of a phrase without 
precedent or analogy. 

4. The belief of such a transubstantiation destroys the credibility of 
all testimony, human and divine, and necessarily tends to atheism. 

5. That the institution of the supper is commemorative and not ex- 
piatory, having nothing of the nature of a sacrifice for sin. 

To which of these important considerations has the gentleman re- 
plied in his last speech ? Has he formally and specifically met any 
one of them 1 

It was also alleged, that the admission of such a pretension, on the 
part of an} 7 priest, was debasing and paralizing to the human under- 
standing, and subjected to imposture and fraud those who implicitly 
acquiesced in it. There are few persons, who so observantly trace 
moral effects to their causes, as to be able duly to appreciate how 
much influence in the formation of human character may philosophi- 
cally be ascribed to such idle, absurd, and. irrational pretensions. 
We sometimes see with what little power, reason, philosophy, and 
experience combat the belief in witches, ghosts, apparitions, and 
other legendary tales, the effect of the nursery and early impressions. 
When the imagination is once filled with such tales and delusions, it 
requires a power equal to the dispossession of demons to rectify it, and 
elevate it above such a tormenting infatuation. 

The gentleman, indeed, with a show of respect for scripture, seem- 
ed to appeal to the 6th chapter of John, as though it spoke of the 
same thing. Now, unless this discourse relates to the last supper, 
and was delivered with respect to it, how idle to seek to prove from 
it what was never said in it ! It was a discourse upon loaves and 
manna, delivered to the people of Capernaum in their synagogue, on 
the occasion of our Lord having fed five thousand men in the desert, 
upon a few loaves and fishes. And as at the well of Jacob he spoke 
of the water of life ; so here, when the miracle of loaves is the topic, 
he speaks of the bread of life.- and of eating that bread, as to the wo- 
man of Samaria, he spoke of drinking that water. He goes on to 
speak figuratively of coming to him, eating him, never hungering, never 
thirsting again, &c, and in the most figurative style, continues his 
discourse, till at last, after he had spoken of their eating his flesh and 
drinking his blood, he told them that the words he spoke " were spirit 
and life" not literal flesh and blood — that flesh and blood could not 
profit the soul. And so the apostle Peter understood him w r hen he 
said, " Lord thou hast the words of eternal life." In metaphori- 
cal language, it is usual to say fi one hungers and thirsts after knowl- 
edge, righteousness,' &c. ; and to say that one eats what he believes 
and receives into his mind. Thus says David: "I found thy word, 
and I did eat it." The transubstantiation of John vi. is the very op- 
posite of the transubstantiation before us. It was flesh into bread, as 
the figure given in John ; and bread into flesh, as the figure given in 
the Eucharist. " I am the living bread." " My flesh is meat, indeed," 
" My blood is drink, indeed." " The bread which I give is my flesh." 

But the gentleman relies upon the Savior's leaving them in error, 
suffering them to go away in a mistake. If this were true ; I can find 
a similar case. To the proud and captious, he often deigned no reply. 
Hence, when some went away from his discourse, alleging that he 



292 DEBATE ON THE 

was born in Nazareth, he took no pains to correct the error, though 
it would seem that a single word would have decided the case. He 
knew what manner of spirit they were of, and never said once ; I was 
not born in Nazareth ; but in Bethlehem. But to conclude, the sub- 
ject of discussion in John vi. is about receiving him — coming to him, 
believing him to be the Messiah, &c, and was addressed to ambitious 
obstinate Jews. The subject in Matth. xxvi. and 1 Cor. xi. is his 
Savior's death, sacrifice and the commemoration of it, addressed to his 
disciples. It is, then, every way illogical to reason from the one to 
the other, as parallel cases. 

But I would ask, how is a man to believe the same sense at one 
time, and disbelieve it at another, when in reading Paul or Matthew 
he sees the words, " this is my body" and when looking on the table, 
he sees not flesh but bread, why should he believe what he sees in 
the former case, and disbelieve what he sees in the latter case. That 
he sees bread is certain ; why not then believe his eyes 1 Or, if he 
rejects them here, why not reject them there, on the words, " This is 
my body ?" and believe that it reads, " this represents my body !" 
But even after the consecration, and after Jesus had said, "This is 
my blood," he clearly teaches, that he spoke in a figure : for, adds 
he, "I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine with you," &c. 
And Paul, after consecration says, "He that eateth this bread, and 
drinketh this cup unworthily" — &c. 

Were it, however, converted into flesh, we would have to ask, 
what sanctifying power in flesh ? or, what spiritual food would there 
be in the human flesh of the Son of God 1 And were it omnipresent, 
how would the eating of it as a sin offering, take away sin from the 
conscience 1 ! The virtue was in the altar, on which the sacrifice 
was offered : for " it is the altar that sanctifies the gift." And had 
it not been for the true and proper divinity of the Son of God, his 
flesh as a sin offering, could in no sense profit any person. But the 
priest can bring down the divine Savior from heaven, and offer him, 
body, soul, and divinity, as often as he pleases; and have the people 
adore both him and the miracle in his hand ! ! He that can believe 
all this, is not to be reasoned with. 

The gentleman's remarks on, " lam with you" even after so many 
hours' reflection since I expounded them, have not the slightest refer- 
ence to any thing I have said. I could not have thought it possible 
for a child to have so misunderstood and misapplied them. I need 
not again repeat them. They are wholly misrepresented. He has 
" defied heaven and earth." What a daring logician ! Yes ; he 
"defied heaven and earth," on what? To weaken his argument on 
infallibility ! It would be hard indeed, to weaken that, which has no 
strength. Perhaps he might defy Omnipotence to weaken what does 
not exist. But the bishop is just as fallible as your humble servant; 
and his church (I may with confidence say) is even more fallible 
than the Protestant church : for, our rule of faith is perfect and com- 
plete : his rule, as I have shown, is imperfect and immoral. 

"But Protestants are better than their principles !" Indeed ! Their 
principles are the bible alone. Their acknowledged principles, cer- 
tainly, are those to which my friend refers ! A good argument ! I 
read the other day something like this — " Bad as human nature is, 
there is no man on earth bad enough to make a good papist." " The 
system cannot be carried out fully by any person." Would my learn- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 2i)3 

ed antagonist call this a good argument against his system 1 And is 
it not as logical as that which he has just alleged I 

The bishop accuses Mr. Smith of ingratitude. I have something 
more to do than to defend Mr. Smith from such groundless imputa- 
tions. Every one who abjures Catholicism, is a wretch : for Protest- 
ants are all heretics ! The best return Mr. Smith or any person can 
make for favors received, is to disabuse the minds of his benefactors 
from error, if they happen to entertain it. The best and most grate- 
ful return that I could make to a Roman Catholic benefactor, for any 
benefit conferred, would be, if possible, to convince and save him from 
the most ruinous and destructive heresy that time records, or ever 
will record. 

Next comes the Secreta Moniia ; for we must circumnavigate another 
circle in this speech also. The Secreta Moniia, then, is just as accu- 
rate* and fair a view of the spirit, design, and policies, of that order, as 
can be given. Such is our faith: and that on no mean testimony 
either. 

We shall give some account of the discovery of this said book : 

—"We are indebted for this "terrible book 1 ' of Jesuits' 

secrets, to the parliament of Paris. They passed the act to abolish the Jesuits 
society : and the execution came on the Jesuit college like a thunder stroke. 
Their palace was surrounded by troops, and their papers and books, and these 
44 Secret Instructions ' were seized before they had heard that the parliament 
had taken up their cause!" 

The reasons which the parliament of France, in 1762, gave for ex- 
tirpating this order, which has thirty-nine times been proscribed, speak 
volumes : 

"The consequences of their doctrines destroy the law of nature: break all the 
bonds of civil society: authorizing lying, theft, perjury, the utmost uncleanness, 
murder, and all sins! Their doctrines root out all sentiments of humanity : excite 
rebellion: root out all religion: and substitute all sorts of superstition, blasphe- 
my, irreligion, idolatry." 

Other reasons for the suppression of this order, will be found in the 
following extract from their oath : 

" In the presence of Almighty God and of all the saints, to 

you, my ghostly father, I do declare that his holiness, pope , is Christ's 

vicar-general, and the only head of the universal church throughout the earth: 
and that by virtue of the keys given him by my Savior, Jesus Christ, he hath 
power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths, and govern- 
ments: all being illegal, without his sacred confirmation; and that they may 
safely be destroyed. Therefore I, to the utmost of my power, shall and will de- 
fend his doctrine, and his holiness' rights and customs against all usurpers," &c. 

" I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, 
prince, state, named Protestants, or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates, 
or officers." 

"I do further promise and declare that notwithstanding \ am dispensed with, 
to assume anj- religion heretical for the propagation of the mother church's in- 
terest, — to keep secret and private, all her agent's counsels," &c. 

" All which I, A. B. do swear by the blessed Trinity, and the blessed sacra- 
ment, which I am now to receive. And I call all the heavenly and glorious 
hosts above, to witness these my real intentions, to keep this my oath. In tes- 
timony hereof, I take this most blessed sacrament of the eucharist, and set my 
hand and seal." 

Such is the order of men restored by Saint Pius VII., who, for re- 
storing them and the inquisition, (" the vice of the dark ages ! !") has 
been beatified, and enrolled in the Roman heavens, as a saint of the 
first order! Is it not in striking and thrilling harmony with the ge- 
nius of our institutions, to have priests of this order, all over the land 
z2 



294 v DEBATE ON THE 

in charge of the souls and consciences of American citizens ? 1 So 
much for Jesuitism. 

I ought not to have called errors " lies," as the apostle John, and 
the other apostles, have done. Why? All errors are lies ; and all 
who propagate them are, by the same apostle, John, called liars. "All 
liars," says he, (teachers of error,) shall have their part in a certain 
lake. Was it not impolite for the apostle, thus to use such a vulgar 
style? I must, then, have fallen into bad company, when I said, the 
man of sin stands upon two cardinal lies ! 

Next comes the doctrine of majorities; and these are every thing 
with a Romanist. They are the root, and reason, and illustration, and 
proof of infallibility. The man who seeks the truth by the tests of 
sincerity, majority, and antiquity, will never find it on earth. This is 
amply true of the present and all past ages. There are sincere Turks, 
Jews, pagans, infidels. There are very ancient errors, heresies, and 
sects. And, as for majorities, from Enoch till now, they have gener- 
ally, if not always, been wrong in religion. Where was the majority, 
when Noah was building his ark ? when Abraham forsook Urr of the 
Chaldees? when Lot abandoned Sodom? when Moses forsook 
Egypt? when Elijah witnessed against Ahab ? when Daniel and his 
companions were captives in Babylon ? when Malachi wrote? when 
the Baptist preached ? when Christ was crucified ? when the apostles, 
and many of the first Christians, were persecuted ? ! 

And, compared with paganism, when had Roman Catholicism the 
majority ? Strange, indeed, that infallibility, after all this, should 
come to be the attribute of majorities ! But the bishop, in his speech 
against Luther, delivered here in October last, said there were one 
hundred and fifty million Roman Catholics. I cannot find them on the 
earth, unless I count many millions of atheists and pagans along with 
them. But, after a more accurate search, I find there are in all, but 
one hundred and ten millions of professed Roman Catholics, and 
amongst these, millions of sceptics : of Protestants, there are seventy- 
five millions; and of the Greek church, above forty millions; making 
at least one hundred and fifteen millions of Protesters against the 
man of sin. Tf, then, there be anything in majorities, the Romanists 
have it not. Infallibility is somewhere else. The time comes, (and 
may heaven speed its flight !) when the kingdom, and the greatness 
of the kingdom, under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people 
of the saints of the Most High, when all dominions shall serve and 
obey him. But Babylon will never see that day ; for she will be 
buried in her own ruins before it comes. And when the angel, with the 
trumpet of everlasting good news, shall sound the hour of her judgment 
as come, and announce the triumph of the gospel ; then, but not till then, 
will the majority be on the side of God, and Christ, and heaven. 

I am only now at the place where I left off in my former speech, 
and my half hour is almost expired. I cannot again condescend to 
such a sacrifice of time to so many points. 

I was showing, when I sat down, that the theory of spiritual des- 
potism always precedes the practical display of it ; and that the theory 
of the terrific and appalling despotism of papal Rome, is to be found 
in principles and theories promulged, and believed, and taught, before 
the reign of darkness and terror began. 

The fact of putting the bible under a bushel, of forbidding the read- 






ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 295 

ing of it, of swearing for ever to interpret it as it has been interpreted, 
of not permitting men to think or speak for themselves on religion, of 
teaching them the power of the priests to work miracles, to create a 
god out of bread, that the people might adore it and them, of making 
a supreme judge of controversy out of one of the parties, or combining 
the legislative, executive, and judicial powers in one person, (the 
model of the most cruel despotism,) is the paragon of supreme tyranny, 
never surpassed, never equaled on earth. 

How any person can, from such a system, elaborate a single ele- 
ment of free government, or of civil liberty, I cannot imagine. Indeed, 
the radical ideas of papal supremacy, are as antipodal to republican 
doctrine and American institutions, as are the zenith and the nadir ? 
But my time has fled. 

"Twelve o'clock, M. 
Bis hop Purcell, rises — 

I have only to stand here for half a minute, and to open the bible, to 
reduce to dust the arguments which it costs my opponent such a waste 
of time and labor to construct. Was not Civil and Ecclesiastical power 
united in the high priest, by the Almighty God, himself? Is not this re- 
corded in Deuteronomy, and admitted by my worthy antagonist ] What 
says the scripture. 

"If you perceive, that there be among you, a hard and doubtful matter in 
judgment, between blood and blood, cause and cause, leprosy and leprosy; and 
thou see that the words of judgment within the gates, do vary ; arise and go up 
to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come to the 
priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge that shall be at that time; and 
thou shalt ask of them, and they shall shew thee the truth of the judgment. And 
thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, that preside in the place, which the 
Lord shall choose, and what they shall teach thee according to this law: and 
thou shalt follow their sentence, neither shalt thou decline to the right hand nor 
to the left hand. But he that will be proud, and refuse to obey the command- 
ment of the priest, who ministereth at that time to the Lord God, and the decree 
of the judge, that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel." 
— Deut. xvii, 8, et seq. 

Here is civil power, and ecclesiastical authority blended in one 
tribunal, of the presiding priest and of the Levitical ministry, and the 
penalty of death ordained by God, against him who contends for private 
judgment and refuses to obey. 

Now, my friends, if Mr. C. seriously intends to employ reason and 
argument, instead of the calumny and abuse too often employed in re- 
ligious discussions heretofore, why does he rake up from a pile of 
rubbish, sad memorial of the havoc made by the enemies of the Je- 
suits, and exhibit the tattered, and sordid, documents found there, for 
proof] I expected " honor bright" from my friend, when w T e began 
this debate, and I still expect it. Have I not dealt fairly myself? 
Have I gone to the sewers and streets, as he has done to those of Cracow 
and Paris for the Secreta Monita, for evidence against the Protestants 1 
No ! I have quoted their most respectable authorities — I have taken up 
Southey, and Waddington, and such writers. I. do not think it honor- 
able to stoop down, and pick up from the gutter, all the vile trash, that 
Protestants have written against one another; much less that, which 
the enemies of Protestants may have invented ; and I do not expect 
this course from my friend, in his attempt to fasten upon Catholics, the 
sins which they abhor. " Why did the parliament of Paris destroy the 
society of the 'Jesuits ?" I will tell the gentleman. Because they 



296 DEBATE ON THE 

had become the disciples of the man, who boasted that " he was tired of 
hearing it said, that twelve men had been able to convert the world from 
paganism to Christianity, for that he would let it be seen that one man 
was able to unchristianize it." This was the boast of Voltaire, who, 
at the head of his letters to the infidel conspirators leagued with him 
against revelation, was accustomed to write the words ; " Ecrasons Vin- 
fame" Let us crush the wretch^ meaning Jesus Christ and his holy re- 
ligion. These anti-chnstian machinations could never succeed, and 
their authors were too wide awake in their hostility to the christian 
faith, not to be aware of the fact, as long as religion commanded the 
services of so learned and exemplary a body of men as the Jesuits. 
In all the entire world, in China and in France, in America and in 
Europe, society, as well as pure religion was their debtor. In every 
language they wrote the most admirable treatises on the mathematics, 
on medicine, on geography. Their historians, orators, poets, mission- 
aries, have never been surpassed. Mr. Secretary Cass and Richard 
Peters of Philadelphia, recorder of the Supreme Court, will inform 
you, for they have examined it, how perfectly accurate is their map of 
Lake Superior with its 1500 miles of coast, which one or two of these 
fathers, while seeking the red man, for Jesus Christ, in their frail 
canoe, found time to survey. In a word the Jesuits were ornaments 
to human nature, but they had, at the same time, the misfortune to be 
the ornaments and the pillars of Religion. This Voltaire knew. His 
infidel colleagues knew it. And as they were conscious that the lives 
of the Jesuits defied their malice, and the learning of the Jesuits would 
continue to confound their sophistry-, they had no resource but to op 
press them by calumny. Hence they spared no pains to render them ob- 
noxious to the Parliament of Paris, and reproduced the Sccreta Monita, 
fabricated by some anonymous calumniator in 1612. The spuriousness 
of this paper has been every where admitted by the critics. Let not any 
one who reads this controversy on the theatre of its exposure, learn 
from it that erudition and honor are at so low an ebb in the United 
States, as to admit as argument, an appeal to so contemptible a slander. 
As to the oath of the Jesuits, it is taken from the same book ! There 
is no Jesuit that ever takes such an oath.' Every Jesuit in the United 
States, who is not a native of the countiy, and intends to reside in 
it, has taken the oath of allegiance to our government. And in George- 
town, in the District of Columbia, in Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, 
are native American Jesuits, some of the most whole-souled and tho 
rough-going republicans in the world, prepared, at any moment, to imi 
tate the patriotic example of the first of their order in the United States, 
Arch-bishop Carroll, the friend and associate of Washington. In this 
spirit they are rivaled by the rest of our clergy. That venerable 
old priest, now before you, has done for half a century, and specially 
in those perilous times that tried men's souls, when a formidable ene- 
my was on our frontier, within our borders — nay in our very capital, 
and committing our nomest monuments to the flames, more for freedom, 
happiness and the union, than any other living man. perhaps, of the 
clerical profession. The Latin poems, which he published during the 
w r ar, breathing the energy and spirit of the songs of the Greeks, when 
they struck down the tyrants, were translated into English, and 
widely circulated. General Harrison, if he were here to-day, would 
inform you, as he has informed me, by my fire-side, what loyal men 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 297 

and true were the Catholic missionaries of Indiana and Missouri, in 
auld lang syne. How they exerted all their influence, and it was not 
inconsiderable, to keep the Indians faithful to the cause of free govern- 
ment. My friends, if I must have an opponent, let me have an honorable 
one : let me have facts and proofs, instead of slanders and insinuations. 
And, to say all in one word, in answer to the charges against the 
Jesuits, Why did the parliament of Pans restore the order in France? 
Ay, that is the question. I will tell the gentleman. Because they 
discovered their blunder, and the injustice they had committed in sup- 
pressing them, and the prostrate state of education, after the Jesuits 
had been expelled the colleges. Then, with the magnanimity of the 
corporation of London, a tew years ago, who honorably chipped off 
the inscription from the pillar, which, like a tall bully, raised its head 
and lied, by attributing the conflagration of 1666 to the Roman Catho- 
lics, did the parliament of Paris make partial atonement for the wrong 
done to the Jesuits. These are examples worthy of our imitation in a 
free and happy republic, where the iron heel of religious bigots should 
not be allowed to bend so much as a blade of grass ! 

I continue my argument for the real presence. I shall first produce 
the sequel of the scripture evidence, and then reply to the objections 
of my friend. The institution of the eucharist is related by three 
evangelists, and by St. Paul ; by St. Matthew, who wrote his gospel, 
in India, seven years after the death of Christ ; by St. Mark, who 
wrote his gospel in Rome, two years later, under the direction of St. 
Peter ; by St. Luke, whose gospel was written in the nineteenth year 
of the Christian era, in Asia; and by St. Paul, from Macedonia, in 
Greece, fifty years later than St. Matthew, and who had learned what 
he teaches, not from the other evangelists, but from the revelations . 
made to himself by Jesus Christ in person ; all writing at different 
times, and in different places, and yet all using the self-same words, 
the plainest in the languages in which they wrote, or in any other, 
and the best adapted to the poor and illiterate, who had the gospel 
preached to them. All these tell us, with one accord, in the Holy 
Ghost, that the Lord, the night before he suffered, took bread into his 
venerable and creating hands ; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, (to 
heaven, to show us whence that power was derived, that goodness 
emanated,) he blessed and brake, and gave it to his disciples, to whom 
he had made the promise of his body, saying : " Take, and eat. This 
is my body." In like manner, the chalice, saying : " Drink you all 
of this. This is my blood of the New Testament." Now, these 
words are so intelligible, and so clear, that if ever the principle, 
that every one can interpret the bible for himself, should be admitted, 
and enforced, and insisted on, it is surely here ; for there is scarcely 
. a possibility that words so plain, and so frequently repeated in their 
plainness, should lead us into error. We may even safely ask, in the 
hypothesis that Jesus Christ had really wished to leave us his body 
and blood in the eucharist, what other words he could have used, to 
signify more clearly the real presence in the sacrament ] He has, 
however, in his incomprehensible wisdom and love, found something 
plainer still ; for he not only said, " This is my body," but, as he 
was then making a law, a will, where nothing should be left, in the 
slightest manner, ambiguous, he added, " This is my body, which is 
given for you, this is my blood, which sha.ll be shed for you." 

38 



298 DEBATE ON THE 

Was it a figurative body, that was delivered for us 1 Was it by figu- 
rative blood, that we were redeemed? Then are we yet in our sins, 
and Jesus Christ has deceived us. This it were, in the last degree, 
impious to suppose ; and, therefore, steadfast in the truth of what the 
Son of God has done for us, we may say, as Tertullian said, on a 
different occasion, to the innovators of his time : Under what pretence 
do you come 1 and why do you remove the landmarks. The estate is 
ours : we have the ancient, the prior possession of it : we are the 
heirs of Jesus Christ : he made his will in our favor ; and, eternal 
praise be given to him, he himself, the original proprietor, has deliv- 
ered to us the title deeds (laying our hands on the bible.) Here is 
the pillar, the fast anchor of our faith in the eucharist. But it is not 
yet expedient to lay aside these texts, without conferring on them one- 
mark of attention more. In the twenty-second chapter of St. Luke, 
18th, 19th, and 20th verses, we read of the institution of the eucharist, 
as a sacrament, and as a sacrifice, in a manner more and more expli- 
cit. ki This," says the benefactor of the world, taking leave of it, 
" this is my body, which is given for you ;" and in the Greek text of 
the. Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, " which is broken for you :'* 
" this is the chalice, the New Testament in my blood, which shall be 
shed for you ;" and in the Greek text, " which is shed for you, for 
the remission of sins : do this in commemoration of me." Here, then, 
is every thing essential to a true sacrifice, clearly prescribed. The 
bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, 
and offered, and ordered to be offered to his heavenly Father, for the 
remission of sins. Now, hear how St. Paul, whose authority, upon 
what I have already remarked of the circumstances in which he was 
called to the apostleship, is entitled to special respect, speaks on this 
subject, in his Epistle to the Corinthians: "Wherefore," says he, 
" my dearly beloved, I speak to you as to wise men ; judge ye your- 
selves what I say. The chalice of benediction which we bless, 
is it not the communion of the blood of Christ 1 And the bread which 
we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord] Behold 
Israel according to the flesh : are not they who eat of the (Pagan) 
sacrifices, partakers of the altar ? But the things which the heathens 
sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not 
that you should be made partakers with devils. You cannot drink of 
the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils : you cannot be par- 
takers of the table of the Lord, and the table of devils." Who does 
not see, in a text so plain, that St. Paul contrasts the table of Christ 
with the altar of the Jews, and the table of devils, which the Gentiles 
frequented. So that, in the same manner as the Jews partook of what was 
offered on the altar, and the Gentiles of what was placed on the table af- 
ter having been first sacrificed to the idols, so do the Christians par- 
take of the table of the Lord, eating of that flesh which had been offered 
for them, and with whose blood they had been sprinkled and purified. 
But this argument would be weak and utterly inconclusive, if the 
faithful, like the Jews and the Heathens, were not partakers of some- 
thing really offered by them in sacrifice. Again, St. Paul, not only 
here, but also in the Ep. to the Hebrews, speaks of an altar, " of an 
altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the Tabernacle." 
Now it is altogether an abuse of terms, a wilful leading of others 
into error, to call that an altar on which sacrifice is never offered ; and 
when St. Paul said we have an altar, whereof they cannot eat, who 



AOMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 299 

remain attached to the Jewish religion, he meant, no doubt what was 
then understood by every one, that there was a victim offered by 
christians at that day, 36 } r ears after Christ, and eaten by priest and 
people. This is the victim of the eucharist, of which Matthew, 
Mark, Luke and Paul speak so clearly, and so forcibly, and which 
we must either now admit on the evidence of scripture, or fling the 
sacred volume into the flames. My opponent may talk of Christ's 
saying ; "lam the vine ;" " I am the door ';" " destroy the temple ;" 
the ten lean kine, and the ten years of famine; but, my friends, does 
not the scripture explain its meaning, so as to leave no doubt as to the 
sense of these, and twenty such texts besides. The dream of Pharaoh, 
and his butler's were most minutely interpreted and perfectly ex- 
plained. The evangelist expressly informs us, Christ "spoke of the 
temple of his body ; lest this expression should leave any doubt on 
the mind of the reader as to the Savior's meaning. But where is the 
parity between these passages and the words of Christ : "this is my 
body — this is my blood." " My flesh is meat indeed — my blood is 
drink indeed." Our Lord does not say of the vine, " this vine shall 
be hung up for you," he does not say of the door, this door shall be 
hung up for ) T ou, he does not say of the temple, or of the vine, " they 
shall be offered for you ;" but he says all this as I shall shew, when 
I come to speak of the institution when speaking of the divine 
food which he gives us in the Eucharist. " This is my body which 
is offered for you* this is my blood, which is shed for y qu" — and as 
he was then at the last hour of his life, and speaking heart to heart 
to his friends, it was no time for parables and figures. The traitor 
was nigh ; the hour was at hand, when he was to pass out of this 
world to the Father. He knew how this doctrine would be contested, 
that the vast majority of christians would believe in it, as they do at 
this day, according to the obvious and literal meaning of the text, and 
yet he speaks not one word to induce us to believe in a figurative pre- 
sence. Why 1 Because he meant it to be understood literally, with 
faith in his almighty power and his infinite love. Because as God, 
he operates his greatest wonders, by the simplest words. " Let there 
be light ;" " Thy son liveth ;" " Lazarus, come forth ,•" " / will, be 
thou cleansed.-" "Take up thy bed and walk" "Peace! Be still " 
" This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise ,•" " This is my body, 
this is my blood" This Luther himself was forced to admit. He 
tells us how very desirous he was, and how much he labored to over- 
throw this doctrine, knowing how much he could, thereby, annoy the 
pope : ' but,' says he, ' I found myself caught, without any w r ay of 
escaping; for the text of the gospel, was too plain for me." Epist. 
ad Argin tenses, t. 4. fol. 502. Ed. Wittemberg. In another place, he 
says, condemning those who denied the corporal presence ; " The 
devil seems to have mocked those to whom he has suggested a heresy 
so ridiculous, and contrary to scripture, as that of the Zuinglians who 
explained away the words of the institution in a figurative way." 
He elsewhere compares these glosses with the following translation 
of the first words of the scripture : In principio Deus creavit coelum 
et terram. — In the beginning the Cuckoo ate the sparrow and his fea- 
thers. Def. verb. Dom. On one occasion he calls those w T ho deny 
the real and corporal presence ; " a damned sect, lying heretics, bread- 
breakers, wine-drinkers, and soul-destroyers." In parv. catech. 
On other occasions he says, " They are endevilized, and superdevi- 



300 DEBATE ON THE 

lized." Finally he devotes them to everlasting flames, "and builds 
his own hopes of mercy at the tribunal of Christ, on his having with 
all his soul condemned Carlostad, Zuinglius, and other believers in 
the symbolical presence. Bishop Bramhall thus writes : " No genuine 
son of the church (of England) did ever deny a true, real presence. 
Christ said — This is my body, — and what he said we steadfastly be- 
lieve. He said neither Con, nor Sub, nor Trans : therefore we place 
those among the opinions of schools, not among articles of faith." 
Ans. to Militiare, p. 74. Bishop Cosin is not less explicit, in favor 
of the Catholic doctrine. He says, " It is a monstrous error to deny 
that Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist. We confess the neces- 
sity of a supernatural and heavenly change ; and that the signs can- 
not become sacraments, but by the infinite power of God. If any one 
make a bare figure of the sacrament, we ought not to suffer him in 
our churches." Hist, de Transub. Lastly the profound Hooker ex- 
presses himself thus ; I wish men would give themselves more to me- 
ditate in silence, on what we have in the sacrament, and less to dis- 
pute of the manner how ; since we all agree that Christ, by the sacra- 
ment, doth really and truly perform in. us his promise, why do we 
vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions whether by con- 
substantiation or else by transubstantiation ?" Eccles. Polit. B. v. 67. 

My opponent says that when we meditate any doctrine, we eat it. 
So, then, when we meditate on hell we eat it and all its contents ! He 
says we eat it spiritually, but this is nonsense. I want not the sto- 
mach or the mind, such orthodoxy requires. 

My friend observes, that the doctrine of transubstantiation is con- 
trary to the testimony of our senses. We have nothing but our sen- 
ses to guide us. This is the scepticism of Thomas Tanew : " Unless 
I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my fingers into 
the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe" 
The Savior condescended to give the requisite proof of the senses, to 
the doubting apostle, but he replied to the confession "My Lord and 
my God," " Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed. 
Blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed." The 
consequences of the doctrine of the real presence are not unworthy of 
God. Every pretended absurdity is as justly chargeable on the In- 
carnation as on the Eucharist. In Pope and McGuire's discussion, 
one of these is to be found, where my friend got the foregoing. It is 
that of a mouse, that is said to have once run away with the sacra- 
ment, while the priest had his eyes shut saying his prayers. But is 
this ridiculous story an argument] Then deny that sin could be com- 
mitted, for sin is a greater insult than this, to Jesus Christ. Deny 
that his sacred person was outraged with blows and spittle ; that he 
was dragged through the streets of Jerusalem, with the halter of ig- 
nominy around his neck ; that he was scourged, crowned with thorns, 
crucified ; that his blood trickled to the ground ; that his executioners 
trampled upon it ; that insects and quadrupeds partook of it ! all these 
adorable scandals are the consequences of the infinite love with which 
Jesus Christ loved us. The more he is humbled for our sakes, the 
dearer should he be to us. But if the scandal of his humiliations 
shake our faith, let the wisdom and the power of the Godhead, dis- 
played in the midst of these humiliations, sustain and animate it. 
Behold ! the earth that receives that falling blood, trembles to her 
very centre; the sun, unable to behold the bloody tragedy, withdraws 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 301 

his light, and leaves the world in darkness and mourning and terror, * 
for its author's dissolution ; the rocks are rent asunder ; the graves 
give up their dead ; the pagan centurion strikes his breast and ex- 
claims " Truly this man was the Son of God." Let us also believe 
and adore ! — [Time expired.] 

Three o'clock, P. M. 
Mr. Campeell rises — 

Knowing, my fellow-citizens, how much depends in such a discus- 
sion, as that now in progress, on having authentic documents, I deter- 
mined from the beginning to rely on none which could, on proper evi- 
dence, or with justice be repudiated. I knew that in all debates so far 
back as the very era of the Reformation this party have been accus- 
tomed to deny authorities, to dispute versions, translations, &c. even 
of their own writers who were so candid as to give a tolerably fair re- 
presentation of themselves. And as all their historians, good and bad, 
frequently tell the truth, they are all occasionally to be censured, when 
that truth is quoted by a Protestant and turned to its proper account. 
I have not then, to my knowledge or belief, introduced an unworthy 
author. x\nd so long as my opponent can disprove nothing which I 
have quoted, either from Du Pin, or Ligori, his frequent allusions to 
them, with such unqualified censures, only shows how much he feels 
the truth of their testimony. 

The Jesuits, that standing army of the pope, are revived, and are 
inundating our country. Other fraternities are but the militia: but 
these are the trained band life-guards of the papacy. Their oath is full 
proof of the spirit of the corps. My worthy opponent says, that they 
are a very learned body of men, and that he is not now a Jesuit. So 
much the worse. How then can he defend the order from the doc- 
trines of the Secreta Monita ; and affirm that they do not now take the 
oath- which I read to you] — He would "represent me as picking out of 
the streets, or out of the ruins of some fallen edifice the oaths and 
books of the Jesuits? If that were the fact, would it disprove the con- 
tents of these documents? It would not. Truth is truth, wherever 
found, in the street or in a temple — in a cellar, or in a mountain. But I 
did not so seek or find them. They are public and authentic documents, 
and my opponent can only deny or dispute, but he cannot disprove them. 

Here is another document, not from the ashes of a monastery. I 
do not know the writer of this article : but it is from an Encyclopaedia. 

Bishop Purcell. Is it the book of Fessenden & Co. 1 

Mr. Campbell. It is from their press. 

Bishop Purcell. Ah ! I know it ! 

Mr. Campbell reads : 

" In 1801 the society was restored in Russia by the emperor Paul ; and in 1804 
by king- Ferdinand, in Sardinia. In August, 1814, a bull was issued by pope 
Pius VII. restoring the order to all their former privileges, and calling upon all 
Catholics to afford them protection and encouragement. This act of their re- 
vival is expressed in all the solemnity of the papal authority; and even affirmed 
to be above the recall or revision of any judge, with whatever power he may be 
clothed; but to every enlightened mind it cannot fail to appear as a measure al- 
together incapable of justification, from any thing either in the history of Jesuit- 
ism, or in the character of the present times. 

" The essential principles of this institution namely, that their order is to be 

maintained at the expense of society at large, and that the end sanctifies the 

means, are utterly incompatible with the welfare of any community of men. 

Their system of lax and pliant moralitv, justifying everv vice, and authorizing- 

2 A 



302 DEBATE ON THE 

every atrocity has left deep and lasting ravages on the face of the moral world. 
Their zeal to extend the jurisdiction of the court of Rome over every civil 
government, gave currency to tenets respecting the duty of opposing princes 
who were hostile to the Catholic faith, which shook the basis of ail political al- 
legiance, and loosened the obligations of every human law. Their indefatigable 
industry, and countless artifices in resisting the progress of the reformed reli- 
gion, perpetuated the most pernicious errors of popery, and postponed the tri- 
umph of tolerant and christian principles. Whence, then, it may well be asked, 
whence the recent restoration'? What long-latent proof has been discovered of 
the excellence, or even the expedience, of such an institution? The sentence of 
their abolition was passed by the senates and monarchs, and statesmen, and di- 
vines, of all religions, and of almost every civilized country in the world. 

Almost every land has been stained and torn by their crimes: and almost eve- 
ry land bears on its public record the most solemn protests against their exis- 
tence. The evils of Jesuitism arise not from the violation of the principles of 
the order; on the contrary, they are the natural and necessary fruits of the sys- 
tem; they are confined to no age, place, or person; they follow like the tail of 
the comet, the same disastrous course with the luminary itself; and, in conse- 
quence, not this or that nation, but humanity, is startled at the re-appearance of 
this common enemy of man." [Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, p. 685. 

Remember, my friends, that one of the cardinal principles of Jesuit- 
ism is, that " the end justifies the means." This maxim justifies every 
crime in our criminal code ! if the cause of the Roman church can be 
thereby promoted. 

The gentleman asked " Why has this order been so often restored, 
if it be not good ?" I answer, For the same reason that the Inquisi- 
tion has been restored, and by the same persons too. Whenever the 
power of the papacy and the state of the community would tolerate it, 
it has been revived ; and I presume so long as the papacy lives, it 
will, being infallible, pursue the same course. Does the restoration 
of the Inquisition prove it to be good 1 

The gentleman would trace to the hatred of Christianity, the oppo- 
sition of Voltaire and other sceptics in France, to the order of the Je- 
suits. This is a non causa. The infidels hated the Jesuits, not for 
Christ's sake, for no one could hate them on that account : but because 
they supported the political despotism of this pretended vicar of Rome. 
This was the true reason of that mortal hatred of the Jesuits by all 
the republicanism of France, and throughout the world. 

The bishop has confessed that he would have the legislative, judi- 
cial, and executive powers in the same hands, and quotes Deuterono- 
my xvii. to prove that it is right, even now. What an admirer of 
American institutions ! Certainly, he has forgotten himself: and the 
Jewish institution too! It was a theocracy. God himself was law- 
giver — the priests kept and expounded the law — the judges and kings 
executed it. Where, then, were all these powers accumulated in one 
and the same dynasty ! It is a mistake of the case, as well as of the 
nature of the government. The very elements of a just and pure gov- 
ernment will be found in separating these powers; the very essence 
of a despotism in uniting them in one and the same person. 

The gentleman, I am glad to observe, understands my discovery of 
the elements of all tyranny in the supreme judge of controversy, or, 
councils of the Roman church. But he fails in vindicating it. The 
council is "the church representative ,•" consequently, it is the church 
judging for herself against the heretics or reformers. She is always 
a party in the case of which she is judge. Most controversies are on 
points affecting the priesthood. All disputes, more or less affect the 
standing or temporal interest of the clergy. Now the councils are 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 303 

composed only of clergy. Is it not then the clergy judging in their 
own case 1 And such is the model of a Roman Catholic Republic ! 

A word or two more on transubstantiation. Will the bishop please 
inform us whether the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the 
natural body of Christ, or into his glorified body? If into the natural 
body, in which he said " this is my body," " this is my bbod ,-" of what 
profit to eat it] and how dare christians to eat it, according to the de- 
crees of the apostles'? and if it be his glorified body, how can there be 
flesh and blood in it ] for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom 
of heaven ! 

The allusions of my opponent to the Episcopalians and Unitarians, 
in vindication of his gross interpretations of the eucharistal words, is 
unworthy of a serious reply. Besides, their opinions are not the sub- 
ject of controversy here. It is transubstantiation, and not consubstan- 
tiation, or any other theory of the presence of the Lord in this ordi- 
nance, which I assert, and which he is bound to defend, if he can. 
The Episcopalians would abhor the comments and interpretations 
which the bishop dares append to their words.. He treats them as he 
treated Luther ! 

One of the most unfortunate references I recollect to have heard in 
debate, was that of the bishop to the unbelief of Thomas. The Sa- 
vior's answer to Thomas fully expresses his sophistry on transubstan- 
tiation : for Jesus said, " reach hither thy finger," — " handle me" — 
" thrust thy hand into my side." So we reason : " Take this loaf into 
your hands, feel it, taste it, smell it, — Is it flesh, or is it bread 1 Test 
it by your senses. Believe not, contrary to your senses. Jesus made 
his appeal to the senses. So do we. Why has my opponent quoted 
this passage 1 Is he turning Protestant 1 

I wish the Roman Catholics would hear Paul in this case. He has 
positively said, that it is bread that is eaten in the act of celebrating 
the supper. " As often," says he, " as you eat this bread, and drink 
this cup, you do show forth the Lord's death till he come." To "drink 
a cup" is certainly a figure as much as " this is my body;" and goes 
to show that words are not to be taken literally in this passage. If 
then, Jesus called it the fruit of the vine, after consecration, and Paul, 
the bread and the cup, in the very act of communicating, I ask, What 
foundation is there for the miracle of the mass 1 ! 

My learned opponent tells you a story about a mouse. It may, in- 
deed, have a good argument in it ; but I do not use such arguments, 
on so grave a subject. He did it, he said, to anticipate me. He did 
not however anticipate me : for I had no intention of telling such a 
story, or any other of the same type. I think it would be more appo- 
site for him to show how a person can believe against his five senses, 
that a priest can, by a few words create the body, soul and divinity of 
the Son of God out of a little "paste ,-" than to relate such mouse 
stories, how true soever they may be. Surely, before they kneel 
down and adore a wafer, they ought to be fully assured that the priest 
has converted it into a divinity ! 

I must return to my last proposition. This concerns him and his 
party more, than any other one of the seven. We will soon be able 
to judge, whether he is determined to evade or canvass it. I would 
emphatically tell him, the community expect him to discuss this sub- 
ject above all others. They are much excited and interested on this 



304 DEBATE ON THE 

point. Many who have no antipathy against Roman Catholics have 
some fears of them. I belong to that class. I have no antipathy : but 
I have my fears. I do honestly think, (and I avow it here, that I may 
give my ingenious opponent an opportunity to remove the impression 
if he can.) I say, I do sincerely believe and think, that Roman Cath- 
olicism, in any country is detrimental to its interests and prosperity : 
and in a republic, directly and positively tending every moment to its 
subversion. Such is my conviction. I avow it, that if possible, it 
may be removed. I always distinguish between a system and those 
who profess it, — between a creed, and the people. And therefore I 
war against principles and not men* I am not singular in these senti- 
ments. They are possessed by a large portion of the most intelligent 
of this community. I have, indeed, been asked, perhaps, a hundred 
times, since October last, in different places, and by different persons, 
of all religious parties and by persons of no sect : "Are you not afraid 
to meet the Catholics in debate]" — Afraid of what] — " Of your life 
— of being killed," was the reply. " Are you not afraid that they will 
lay violent hands on you 1" No ; was my answer. I met the infidel 
Owen and feared nothing ; and certainly I have no more to fear from 
"the Mother and Mistress of all christians" than from infidels ! 

It gives me pleasure to say, that there are some Roman Catholics, 
to whom I could trust my life and my all as confidently, as to any 
Protestant. To such men, as Fenelon, as Paschal, as Rollin, as Du 
Pin, as St. Pierre, as Thomas a Kempis, I could commit my life, as 
freely and as cheerfully as to any Protestants. In such cases the man 
rises above the system. I state this fact to interest my opponent in 
discussing my seventh proposition; and to assure him that it will give 
me pleasure, and I have no doubt the whole community, to learn that 
all such fears are perfectly groundless ; and to see that he is able sa- 
tisfactorily to remove them. Let the public mind be disabused : for 
as present advised, Protestants generally think that civil liberty and 
the papacy are wholly incompatible with each other : and that the in- 
troduction of large numbers of Roman Catholics into this community, 
would inevitably subvert this government ; and place us under a spi- 
ritual and political despotism, intolerant and cruel as those, which the 
see of Rome has established in every country on earth, where she has 
obtained a majority. 

Let the gentleman, then, turn his attention to this subject, and im- 
prove the opportunity in wiping from his escutcheons those foul stains 
that have associated with the name Roman Catholic every thing that 
is intolerant, inhuman and tyrannical. Let him show us here in what 
manner the decrees of councils, the bulls of popes, the oaths of the 
clergy, and the infallibility of the church are to be disposed of, if we 
could promise ourselves that the prevalence of his party in this coun- 
try would not be an end of all those free and equitable institutions, 
which have made these United States the wonder and the admiration 
of the world. 

Is it of the essence of this superstition to root out and destroy every 
antagonist principle, tenet, and party ; or is it merely accidental, that 
Rome can endure no living rival 1 Has not the Roman see even when 
a foreign empire always sought to be above all gods or magistrates : 
and does it not now bind every bishop on earth under the most heart 
searching and conscience binding oaths and anathemas, to defend and 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 305 

keep the Roman papacy, and the royalties of St. Peter ■, saving his own 
order against all men 1 Is not my opponent thus sworn 1 Has he 
not bound himself as he shall answer to God in the great day, by the 
most solemn imprecations to preserve, defend, increase and advance the 
authority of his lord the pope, and his successors canonically coming 
in 1 — He has so sworn — just as certainly, as he has sworn " to persecute 
and oppose all heretics and schismatics," as we read from an oath 
which he has not yet had the courage to deny. It is, indeed, a part 
of the same oath. 

It will require the ingenuity of a Jesuit to show how these duties to 
the pope can consist with the obligations of the oath of naturalization, 
or the duties which a citizen of this country owes to its government. 
But before I comment further on the oath, we will hear it to the end : 

44 1 will come to a council when I am called, unless I be hindered by a cano- 
nical impediment. I will by myself in person visit the threshold of the apostles 
every three years; and give an account to our Lord and his aforesaid successors 
of all my pastoral office, and of all things any wise belonging to the state of my 
church, to the discipline of my clergy and people, and lastly to the salvation of 
souls committed to my trust; and will diligently execute the apostolic commands. 
And if I be detained by a lawful impediment, I will perform all things aforesaid 
by a certain messenger hereto specially empowered, a member of my chapter, 
or some other ecclesiastical dignity, or else having a parsonage; or in default 
of these, by a priest of the diocese; or in default of one of the clergy, [of the 
diocese] by some other secular or regular priest of approved integrity and re- 
ligion, fully instructed in all things above mentioned. And such impediment 
I will make out by lawful proofs to be transmitted by the aforesaid messenger to 
the cardinal proponent of the holy Roman church in the congregation of the 
sacred council. The possessions belonging to my table, I will neither sell, nor 
give away, nor mortgage, nor grant anew in fee, nor any wise alienate, no, not 
even with the consent of the chapter of my church, without consulting the Ro- 
man Pontiff. And if 1 shall make any alienation, I will thereby incur the penal- 
ties contained in a certain constitution put forth about this matter. So help me 
God and these holy Gospels of God." Pontif. Rom. Antwerp. Anno 1626— 
pp. 59, 86. [Time expired.] 

Half past 3 o'clock, P. M. 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

Mr. Campbell begs me to follow him. I am following him ; but 
the truth is that my learned friend runs away so fast from his own 
reason, that it is not surprising if he gets ahead of mine. My friends, 
I promise to satisfy you on the vital question of civil liberty. He 
will not be able to* draw me off from my argument. He is a foreign- 
er, an Irishman, as well as I, and I am sorry to see, that while he 
breathes, he would infect, the atmosphere of freedom. We are both 
indebted to America for the liberty which we enjoy, which he as a dis- 
senter, and I, as a Catholic, would not have enjoyed under the Pro- 
testant Government of Great Britain, in our native land. For myself, 
I am ?n adopted American citizen, having renounced, by oath, all for- 
eign allegiance. It is my only desire to live and act as an American 
freeman should, and escape the charge which rests on foreigners like 
my worthy opponent, and those Scotch fanatics in New York, who 
volunteer to teach Americans how to understand their own consti- 
tution. These, and their like, are the men who cause all the excite- 
ment about religion. They, and not the Catholics, are the real mis- 
chief makers. This, I say, more in sorrow than in anger, and exclu- 
sively with the view of doing justice to the truth. Let us appreciate 
the blessings we here enjoy, and not withhold, or mar them. We 
have not here imbibed the spirit of controversy, which may be called 
2i2 39 



306 DEBATE ON THE 

the spirit of the world, but the spirit of charity, which is the spirit 
of God. The former is predicated for another meridian. 

I will now finish my arguments on the real presence. St. Paul, 
speaking of the dispositions with which the Eucharist was to be re- 
ceived, seals the proof deduced from the words of the institution and 
the promise. His words are these : " When you come therefore to- 
gether into, one place, it is not now to eat the Lord's supper." The 
apostle condemns their partaking of this, as of ordinary food. " What," 
says he, " have you not houses to eat and to drink in 1 or despise ye 
the church of God ; and put them to shame that have not 1 What 
shall I say to you 1 Do I praise you 1 In this I praise you not. For 
I have received of the Lord, that which also, I delivered unto you, 
that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took 
bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said : 'Take ye and eat; this 
is my body which shall be delivered for you; this do for a commemo- 
ration of me.' In like manner, also, the chalice, after he had supped, 
saying : * This chalice is the New Testament in my blood ; this do 
ye as often as you shall drink it, for the commemoration of me.' For 
as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall 
shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever 
shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall 
be guilty of the body, and blood of the Lord. But let a man prove 
himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that chalice. 
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judg- 
ment unto himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." 1st. Ep. 
Cor. ch. xi. Here the most virtuous and pious dispositions under 
the dread penalty, of receiving the body and blood of the Lord un- 
worthily, and thus incorporating, and making our condemnation a 
portion of our flesh and blood and being, are required of the Catholic 
communicant, and yet my worthy opponent quotes this sanctifying 
doctrine among the immoralities of the Catholic church ! 

But my friend objects to transubstantiation. Then let him differ 
from Luther and the Episcopalians, for the real presence, without 
transubstantiation, which they teach, is a greater difficulty. If the 
bible be our guide, let us adhere to it. What was the first miracle 
which our Savior wrought 1 Was it not the changing of water into 
wine l transubstantiation ] My friend says that he has never read on 
this subject, nor studied it. I do not wonder that he says it is so ab- 
surd, if he never gave it serious consideration. (Mr. Campbell here ex- 
plained that he had said that he had never read a controversial treatise 
on the subject, but affirmed that he had reflected on it, and studied it,) 
Not only the first miracle, but every thing in nature confirms the doc- 
trine. The bread and meat that my friend ate, a week ago, is, this 
day, flesh and blood and bone of his body. So of trees, — the juices 
they draw from the soil, are converted into branches and verdure. Na- 
ture, in fact, is replete with evidences illustrative of the possibility 
of transubstantiation. If you wish for a human testimony, interro- 
gate christian antiquity. St. Ignatius, the disciple of the apostles, 
in his Epistle to the church of Smyrna, speaking of heretics, says, 
" They do not admit of Eucharists and oblations, because they do 
not believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ, 
who suffered for our sins." 

Origen says ; " Manna was formerly given, as a figure ; but now 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 307 

the flesh and blood of the Son of God are specifically given, and are 
real food." 

St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, says: 

" Since Christ himself affirms thus of the bread, This is my body; who is so 
daring as to doubt of it? and since he affirms, this is my blood; who will deny- 
that it is his blood? At Cana in Galilee, he, by an act of his will, turned water into 
wine, which resembles blood, and is he then not to be credited when he changes 
wine into blood? Therefore, full of certainty, let us receive the body and blood 
of Christ; for under the form of bread, is given to thee his body/and under 
the form of wine, his blood." 

St. Ambrose thus argues with his spiritual children : 

"You will say, why do you tell me that I receive the body of Christ, 
when I see quite another thing? We have this point therefore to prove. How 
many examples do we produce to show you, that this is not what nature made it; 
but what the benediction has consecrated it; and that the benediction is of greater 
force than nature, because by the benediction, nature itself is changed ! Moses cast 
his rod upon the ground, and it became a serpent ; he caught hold of the serpent's 
tail, and it recovered the nature of a rod. The rivers of Egypt, &c. Thou hast 
read of the creation of the world: If Christ, by his word, was able to make some- 
thing out of nothing, shall he not be thought able to change one thing into another." 

My friend spoke of the period at which this doctrine was introduced, 
and quoted Scotus. I venture my life, that he does not know who 
Scotus was, or when he lived. I ask my friend to tell me, who is this 
Scotus, to whom he referred. 

Mr. Campbell. — I presume he was a father of the church. 

Bishop Purcell. — I do not speak disrespectfully of my friend, but 
I do not like this^ index learning : 

" Which turns no student pale, 
Yet holds the eel of science by the tail." 
There were two individuals whom he has confounded. The first, 
called Scotus Evigena, lived in the ninth century, and wrote a treatise 
against the real presence, which was condemned in many councils. 
The second flourished in the fourteenth century, and taught theology 
in Oxford and Paris. Or, instead of either of the foregoing, does the 
gentleman quote Soto, the theologian, sent by Charles V. of Germany, 
to the council of Trent? Of which of them does the gentleman 
speak ? I pause for a reply. (Pauses.) 

Mr. Campbell. — You may proceed. 

Bishop Purcell. — I will proceed to settle this point. 

Mr. Campbell. That is not the question before us. 

Bishop Purcell. Well, then, my friends, I will take up the sub- 
ject of indulgences, against which my friend had directed his batteries. 
An indulgence is no license to commit sin. The Catholic church ana- 
thematizes the doctrine that any man, or set of men, can grant a license 
to commit sin. She teaches that an indulgence is nothing more nor 
less than a remission of the temporal punishment, which often remains 
attached to sin, after the eternal guilt has been forgiven to the sinner, 
on his sincere repentance. Before proving this doctrine both scriptural 
and rational, and that the church is guilty of encouraging no immora- 
lity by the power which she exercises in the granting of indulgences, I 
must shew that the charge of immorality presses heavily on my oppo- 
nent's doctrine, and not on mine, for he teaches that the distinction be- 
tween greater and lesser sins is not found in scripture. He has advo- 
cated the monstrous, and insupportable doctrine, that the child who 
tells an untruth, to save itself from punishment, is as guilty as the 
parricide who cuts his father's throat! and accuses Catholics of being 



308 DEBATE ON THE 

immoral, because they do not subscribe to such a doctrine as this ! 
What is the effect of this doctrine, that all sins are equal 1 Why, it 
is this : that the man who has committed the slightest sin, is as guilty 
in the sight of God, and as deserving of being damned, as if his sins 
were ever so enormous. " If this be my lot," is his spontaneous rea- 
soning, " I see no cause why my passions should not have all the ad- 
vantage of this doctrine. I will, therefore, continue to sin. No na- 
tural law, no divine legislation, no civil convention, or moral restraint, 
shall debar me of my pleasures." This is revolting ; it is horrible. 
Scripture, reason, and Catholicism, anathematize it. I now resume 
the proof of my position, touching indulgences, and maintain that after 
the eternal guilt is remitted, a temporal pain is often inflicted for the 
satisfaction of divine justice. Thus, when Adam and Eve had sinned 
in paradise, when they had incurred the Divine displeasure, and heard 
the dread sentence pronounced against them and their posterity, even 
in his wrath the Almighty remembered mercy. They were driven 
from Eden, but not into hell. In other words, the eternal guilt of their 
sin was forgiven, but the temporal punishment still remained to be 
endured. (There is some doubt whether Eve partakes of her consort's 
happiness in heaven, or not; but Adam, we are assured by scripture, 
is in heaven.) " In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat thy bread," 
said the Lord, " the earth shall be accursed in thy toil, briars and 
thorns," &c. We are bearing a part of their punishment. We feel 
the effects of this primeval prevarication. The whole earth is a hospi- 
tal. Poverty, crime, disease, war, pestilence, and famine ; physical, 
moral, and mental afflictions, and evils; all the quarreling; all the 
differences of opinion; this very controversy; all this is a part of 
the temporal punishment of our first parents' transgression. This 
shews the difference between the temporal and eternal punishment of 
sin. Behold another illustration. David takes Uriah's wife — he orders 
Uriah into the front of the battle that he might be killed. The Al 
mighty, incensed at his double crime, sends his prophet to rebuke him, 
and David trembles before his wrath. God is moved, and pardons 
him. He remits the eternal guilt of his sin, but not its temporal punish- 
ment. "The child that is born for thee shall die." W T e know all the 
evils that followed ; Absalom, &c. The doctrine of indulgences is this : 

WHEN A HUMAN BEING DOES EVERY THING IN HIS POWER TO ATONE FOR 

sin, God has left a power in the church, to remit a part or the entire of 
the temporal punishment due to it. It is always understood, that no 
matter what the church does, the indulgence is of no effect, if the re- 
pentance be not sincere. I will give you a striking example from 
scripture. It is the case where St. Paul absolved the incestuous man 
of Corinth, 2d Cor. ii. 6, 8, who had been guilty, even in the early age 
of the church, of a crime which struck the hearts of all the church 
with dismay. St. Paul wrote to Corinth and said, when he heard that 
the man was overwhelmed with contrition, and shunned by all the 
people, " To him that is such a one this rebuke is sufficient, that is 
given by many. And to whom you have pardoned anything, I also 
For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes 
have I done it in the person of Christ." One text is worth twenty 
arguments. The obedience rendered to St. Paul on this occasion, by 
the church of Corinth, my friend denounces. But the early christians 
were more humble, and Paul was gnilty of no assumption in demand- 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 309 

ing it. "In the person of Christ," — mark those words — that he, in 
the person of Christ, forgave — what 1 — not the eternal guilt of the in- 
cestuous man — God alone could forgive that ; hut the temporal punish- 
ment ; to restore him to the privileges of the church and of christian 
society. Nothing is more frequent in the ecclesiastical history of the 
early ages, than the narrative of the acts of the martyrs ; and this, 
among others, of their being visited in prison, or met in their way to 
execution, by persons condemned to perform public penances, accord- 
ing to the discipline of the church in those days, and supplicated for a 
ticket, or other intimation of intercession in their behalf, with the pas- 
tors of the church, that the term of these penances might be abridged, 
in consideration of the martyr's generous sacrifices. One drop of 
Christ's precious blood was sufficient to ransom a thousand worlds. 
He left this treasure and its keys to the church, saying, "Whatever 
you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven," &c. But I will 
give you other examples Jo illustrate the doctrine of indulgences. The 
English church grants indulgences. Luther granted them, of an extra- 
ordinary kind too. Our government grants indulgences. An insolvent 
debtor hangs his head with shame ; there is nothing he would not do 
to pay his debts. The law takes him to jail — he gives a schedule of 
his property, and upon surrendering all he possesses in the world, upon 
oath, he is allowed to take the benefit of the act. This is what the 
church does to sinners, who sincerely repent and do all they can, first, 
to pay the spiritual debts that stand against them. Shew me that there 
is- anything w T rong in the insolvent laws, and then you may find fault 
with the practice of the church. As for the pope, or bishop, giving a 
license to sin, I will repeat as often as it is repeated, that the Catholic 
church reprobates it. If all the bishops in the world, and the pope 
were to sign such a license, the sinner would not be forgiven, if he re- 
mained in sin. God himself does not pardon sin upon these terms. 
But I cannot consent that the gentleman should force down our throats 
doctrines that we abominate.— [Time expired.] 

Four o'clock^ P. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises- 
Real ly, my friends, it would seem as if I ought to go back some 
two or three days to help my opponent forward to the subject now 
before us. But I will not. There is no person in this house, with 
the exception of my ingenious opponent, who believes that I repre- 
sent all sins as equal as respects man. Though as respects the di- 
vine law, as already observed, they are equally transgressions of it. 
Hence, as James the apostle avers : " He that offends in one point" 
though he should keep every other, " is guilty of all"! The gentle- 
man, then, may defend his " white lies," and other violations of God's 
law, as he pleases ; but God will show the universe that, as respects 
his character, as Lawgiver and King, the least infraction, as respects 
man, is the highest insult that can be rendered to the Lawgiver. 
Eve's " little sin," as the infidels call it, is the best exposition of the 
logic of Roman theology. Though it differs much in the estimation 
of man from the treachery of Judas : yet, does not every page and 
letter in man's sad history, bear witness, that even the pulling off an 
apple against the law of God, is an offence that justifies the Gover- 
nor of the Universe for having suffered the whole creation on our 



310 DEBATE ON THE 

planet to groan and travail together in pain and death for thousands of 
years. 

To the unpropitious destiny of my opponent I attribute all his re- 
marks on my saying that I read no tracts in confutation of transub- 
stantiation. Does that prove that I cannot refute— or that I have not 
refuted his defence of it. The bible alone qualifies me to expose all 
his sophistry, or that of any man, on that grossest and most un- 
feasible of all the impostures that have, in any age or nation, been 
obtruded on mankind. 

The gentleman has spoken of various natural tran substantiations ! 
Astonishing ! Who ever thought any thing else, but that all organi- 
zed bodies, all earthly substances, nay, indeed, that all matter was 
susceptible of real changes, and new combinations and transubstanti- 
ations 1 But where is the analogy 1 They are real and apparent, 
visible and sensible transubstantiations. But the universe affords 
no transubstantiation, similar to that for which the Bishop contends — 
Nothing transubstantiated, and yet the same to all our sense and 
reason. 

But in the name of reason itself, what distress or pressure of mis- 
fortune has induced this learned gentleman to appeal to the miracle 
in Cana of Galilee — to the transubstantiation of water into wine 1 That 
was really a transubstantiation. It did not look like water — taste 
like water, smell like water, nor operate like water. Jt was real wine, 
in color, taste, smell, and all its sensible properties. What a refuta- 
tion has the gentleman found in his own illustration ! ! 

The Bishop's remarks upon " eating the word" &c. &c, are equal- 
ly unhappy, and extravagant. He has not done himself any honor on 
this occasion. Jesus said, " if is my meat and my drink to do the 
will of him that sent me." Truth is an aliment of the soul, and do- 
ing the will of heaven is a feast to every christian. But can the soul 
feast on literal flesh and blood 1 ! 'Tis an outrage on common sense ! 

I was glad to hear him even quote the words, " Judge you what I 
say :" any appeal to reason, any word favorable to examination, com- 
ing from that quarter, falls on my ear like the sound of the dulci- 
mer. Jesus says, " Why do you not of yourselves judge what is 
right;" and Paul says, "Judge what I say;" and John commands, 
" Believe not every spirit ; but try the spirits, for many false prophets 
are gone forth into the world." Now all these commands are address- 
ed to the common mass of christians. Well, then, says Paul, " The 
loaf for which we give thanks, is it not the communion of the body ol 
Christ." &c. ; " and the cup which we bless, is it not the communion 
of the blood ?" &c. : and the whole is called the Lord's table, the 
Lord's supper — an institution in remembrance of one that is absent, 
" till he come :" — not the eating of one present, but the memorial 
of one absent. " You then," says Paul, " do show forth the Lord's 
death till he come." 

The Corinthian abuses show, that they had no notion of a wafer 
and no wine — of a mass, a transubstantiation. Paul reproved them 
for their irregularities, and said this was not to eat the LoraVs supper, 
(not to partake of a mass) : for some had eaten and even drunk to excess. 
The rich had brought a large supper, and put the poor to shame, who 
had no supper to bring. These were abuses which could never have 
arisen out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. In one word, there 
was as much transubstantiation in the passover, because it is called the 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 311 

" Lord's passover," as there is in the institution of the supper, be- 
cause it is called the " Lord's body :" and he that cannot thus " dis- 
cern the Lord's body," in this institution, is not to be reasoned with 
on any religious question. 

Next comes the gentleman's splendid episode on the identification 
of the unfortunate Scotus, whose peculiar age and country I am no 
more bound to remember, or to tell here, than I am to relate the per- 
sonal or family history of every individual I quote. How many au- 
thors are daily quoted, whose age and country, not one in a hundred, 
may be able to relate with historic accuracy ! Are those who cite Co- 
pernicus, Zoroaster, Euclid, or even Newton, obliged to tell when or 
where they were born, lived and died 1 It is, however, on the au- 
thority of Bellarmine I quoted this celebrated Roman Catholic au- 
thor, and ought I not, on such an endorsement, to regard Scotus as of 
high authority in the Roman church ] 

Time is becoming very precious, and as I have only two speeches 
after to-day, I shall not go farther into the details of the proposition, 
now under discussion, especially as I have not been met by the Bish- 
op on the two grand errors which nourish and sustain the baseless 
dream of purgatory and the sacraments of penance, auricular confes- 
sion, the mass, &c. &c. 

Indulgence is not identical with absolution, as my opponent seems 
to argue. Indulgence, as the term imports, is a licence to sin : abso- 
lution is the forgiveness of sin. An indulgence gives licence to sin, 
because it promises the person prospectively an exemption from the 
punishment ; and even to remain, in full force, in the moment of 
death ! 

My seventh proposition says : 

"The Roman Catholic religion, if infallible and insusceptible of reformation, 
as alleged, is essentially anti-American, being opposed to the genius of all free 
institutions, and positively subversive of them, opposing the general reading of 
the scriptures, and the diffusion of useful knowledge among the whole commu- 
nity, so essential to liberty and the permanency of good government." 

"Essentially anti-American." — This I have so far proved, as refer- 
ence has already been made to those doctrines, which make the Roman 
Catholic population abject slaves to their priests, bishops, and popes — 
to that hierarchy which has always opposed freedom of thought, of 
speech, and of action, whether in literature, politics, or religion. Such 
are the laws of mind — such the intellectual and moral constitution of 
man, that if in religion the mind be enslaved to any superstition, espe- 
cially in youth, it rarely or ever can be emancipated and invigorated. 
The benumbing and paralizing influence of Romanism is such, as to 
disqualify a person for the relish and enjoyment of political liberty. 
For in all history, civil liberty follows in the wake of religious liberty ; 
insomuch, that it is almost an oracle of philosophy, that religious liberty 
is the cause, and political liberty an effect of that cause, without 
which it never has been found. Compare not Protestant America with 
the republics of Greece or Rome; for there is scarcely any point of 
coincidence in this respect. There never was on earth so free and so 
equitable an institution as the Protestant institutions of these United 
States. 

We shall now exemplify the spirit and tendency of Romanism, taken 
from the live hundred years in which it was most triumphant. 

As a specimen of that abject slavery of Romanists to their superiors, 



312 DEBATE ON THE 

and of the humility of the popes, of which my friend has so often 
spoken, take the following example. 

" According to this doctrine then current at Rome, in the last Lateran great 
synod, under the Pope's nose, and in his ear, one bishop styled him Prince of 
the world; another orator called him King of kin<p, and Monarch of the earth; 
another great prelate said of him, that he had all power above all powers, 
both of heaven and earth. And the same roused up Pope Leo X. in these brave 
terms: " Snatch up therefore the two-edged sword of divine power, committed to 
thee; and enjoin, command, and charge, that an universal peace and alliance be 
made among christians for at least ten years; and to that bind kings in fetters 
of the great king, and constrain nobles by the iron manacles of censures: for 
to thee is given all power in heaven and in earth." 

"This is the doctrine which Barronius, with a Roman confidence, doth so often 
assert and drive forward, saying, " that there can be no doubt of it, but that the 
civil principality is subject to the sacerdotal: and that God hath made the poli- 
tical government subject to the dominion of the spiritual church." Epis. Patrac. 
Sess. 10, p. 133. Barronius, Annals, 57. 23. 

It is Barronius, and not Du Pin, says, " that God has made the poli- 
tical government subject to the spiritual" This is the true doctrine of 
popery. But we shall hear another great cardinal. 

Again Bellarmine says; "By reason of the spiritual power, the pope, at least, 
indirectly, hath a supreme power even in temporal matters." 

Concerning which, Dr. Barrow rightly observes, "If the pope may 
strike princes, it matters not much whether it be by a downright blow 
or slantingly." _ 

We shall now very hastily run back from A. D. 1585 to 730, and 
give a few specimens of the true spirit, and tone, and action, of this 
institution, during its ascendency. 

A. D. 1585. "The bull of Pope Sixtus V. against the two sons of wrath, 
Henry, King of Navarre, and the Prince of Conde, beginneth thus: 'The au- 
thority given to St. Peter and his successors, by the immense power of the eter- 
nal king, excels all the powers of earthly kings and princes. — It passes uncon- 
trollable sentence upon them all — and if it find any of them resisting God's or- 
dinance, it takes more severe vengeance of them, casting them down from their 
thrones, though never so puissant, and tumbling them down to the lowest parts 
of the earth, as the ministers of aspiring Lucifer.' And then he proceeds to 
thunder against them, ' We deprive them and their posterity forever of their 
dominions, and kingdoms;' and accordingly he depriveth those princes of their 
kingdoms and dominions, absolveth their subjects from their oaths of allegiance, 
end forbiddeth them to pay any obedience to them. 'By the authority of these 
presents, we do absolve and set free all persons, as well jointly as severally, 
from any such oath, and from all duty whatsoever in regard %f dominion, fealty 
and obedience, and do charge and forbid all and every of them that they do not 
dare to obey them, or any of their admonitions, laws, and commands." Bulla 
Sixti V. Contra Henr. Navarre, R. &c. 

Is this the genius of our government'? Are these the doctrines of 
the United States 1 Here you have kings hurled from their thrones, 
and subjects released from their allegiance, without ceremony, by the 
vicars of Christ and the head of the church ! Who is this that sets 
aside oaths, and religious obligations, in the name of the Lord 1 
" Why," says the modern Roman Catholic, " do you bring up these 
old things ?" Not so very old ! But will the bishop mention the 
council that ever repudiated this doctrine? 

The bishop says, 4 they have been repudiated.' I thank him for 
conceding that they once existed ! But now for the proof of their re- 
pudiation. Nothing is infallible but a general council ; and what gene- 
ral council has set since the days of pope Sixtus V. ? ! ! The council 
of Trent convened Dec. 13, 1545, and all its decrees were confirmed 
by the pope Jan. 26, 1564; consequently, the bull of pope Sixtus V. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 313 

is the bull of the Reformed Infallible Roman church after the council 
of Trent! ! If it were orthodox then, it is orthodox now. 

We shall now hear pope Pius V. (almost canonized,) excommuni- 
cate the queen of England, and for aught I know, we Protestants were 
all excommunicated at the same time. 

A. D. 1570. " He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven 
and in earth, hath committed the one holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, out 
of which there is no salvation, to one alone on earth, namely, to Peter, prince 
of the apostles, and to the Roman pontiff, successor of Peter, to be governed 
with a plenitude of power; this one he hath constituted prince ovei all nations, 
and all kingdoms, that he might pluck up, destroy, dissipate, ruinate, plant, 
and build." — And in the same bull he declares, that ' he thereby deprives the 
queen of her pretended right to the kingdom, and of all dominion, dignity, and 
privilege whatsoever; and absolves all the nobles, subjects, and people of the 
kingdom, and whoever else have sworn to her, from their oath and all duty 
whatsoever, in regard of dominion, fidelity and obedience." [Camp. Hist. 
anno. 1570. 

That this was not peculiar to one individual, but of the spirit of the 
system, appears from the following facts : 

Pope Clement VI. did pretend to depose the Emperor Lewis IV. 

Pope Clement V. in the great synod of Vienna, declared the emperor subject 
to him, or standing obliged to him by a proper oath of fealty. [Clem. lib. 
ii. tit. 9. 

Pope Boniface VIII. hath a decree extant in the canon law running thus : 
* We declare, say, define, pronounce it to be of necessity to salvation, for every 
human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff." 

A. D. 1294. "For one sword, saith he, must be under another, and the tem- 
poral authority must be subject to the spiritual power; — whence, if the earthly 
power doth go astray, it must be judged by the spiritual power." Ibid. 

This definition says Dr. Barrow, at the foot of whose pages we have the Latin 
original of all these decrees, might pass for rant of that boisterous pope (a man 
above measure, ambitious and arrogant) vented in his passion against king Philip 
of France, if it had not the advantage (of a greater than which no papal decree 
is capable) of being expressly confirmed by one of their general councils; for, 
'We (saith Pope Leo X. in his bull read and passed in the Lateran council) do 
renew and approve that holy constitution, with approbation of the present holy 
council.' Accordingly Mech Cauns saith, that ' the Lateran council did renew 
and approve that extravagant (indeed extravagant) constitution:' and Barro- 
nius saith of it, that * all do assent to it, so that none dissenteth who do not by 
discord fall from the church.' 

The truth is, pope Boniface did not invent that proposition, but borrowed it 
from the school; for Thomas Aquinas in his work against the Greeks, pretend- 
eth to show, that it is of necessity to salvation to be subject to the Roman 
Pontiff 

The appendix to Mart Pol saith of pope Boniface VIII. ' Regem se Regum, 
JHundi J\rIonarcham,unicum in spiritualibus et temporalibus Dominum promul- 
gavit;' that he openly declared himself to be the king of kings, monarch of the 
world, and sole lord and governor both in spirituals and temporals. 

Before him, pope Innocent IV. did hold and exemplify the same notion; de- 
claring the emperor Frederick II. his vassal, and denouncing in his general coun- 
cil of Lyons, a sentence of deprivation against him in these terms: We having, 
about the foregoing and many other his wicked miscarriages, had before a care- 
ful deliberation with our brethren and the holy council, seeing that we, although 
unworthy, do hold the place of Jesus Christ on earth, and that it was said unto 
us in the* person of St. Peter the apostle, whatever thou shaltbind on earth — the 
said prince (who hath rendered himself unworthy of empire and kingdoms, and 
of all honor and dignity, and who for his iniquities is cast away by God, and that 
he should not reign or command, being bound by his sins and cast away, and 
deprived by the Lord of all honor and dignity) do show, denounce, and accor- 
dingly, by sentence, deprive; absolving all who are held bound by oath of alle- 
giance from such oath forever; by apostolical authority firmly prohibiting, that 
no man henceforth do obev or regard him as emperor or king; and decreeing, 

2 B 40 



314 DEBATE ON THE 

that whoever shall hereafter yield advice, or aid, or favor to him as emperor or 
king-, shall immediately lie under the band of excommunication." 

Before him, pope Innocent the third, (that true wonder of the world, and 
changer of the age,) did affirm the pontifical authority so much to exceed the 
royal power, as the sun doth the moon; " and applieth to the former that of the 
prophet Jeremiah: Ecce. constitui te super gentes et regno, ; — see, I have set 
thee over the nations and over the kingdoms to root out and to pull down, and 
to destroy and to throw down," &c. 

Article xxiii. Pope Pius IV. " I do acknowledge the holy Catholic and 
apostolic Roman church to be the mother and mistress of all churches; and I 
do promise and swear true obedience to the bishop of Rome, the successor of 
Peter, the prince of apostles, and the vicar of Jesus Christ." [Time expired.] 

Half past 4 o'clock, P. M. 
Bishop Purcell. rises — 
f My friends, Mr. Kinmont will read, before I close, what Liguori says on 
J the subject of Mr. Smith's charges against the Catholic church. It affords 
\ me more pleasure than I can express, to have an opportunity of proving, by a 
( gentleman, who is not a Catholic, and therefore is a disinterested witness, as far 
\ as I and my religion are concerned, that it is 'all a base slander. 

We have heard a great deal about the pope's deposing kings, and absolving 
subjects from their oaths of allegiance, and so on. In your presence and 
hearing therefore, I am going to put my friend into one of the most terrible di- 
lemmas in which he has ever been placed in his life. Now, sir, (addressing 
Mr. C.) suppose you had been living at the time of the American Revolu- 
tion, and were witness to the tyranny, which these colonies had to endure, 
on the part of his most gracious majesty, king George III. of England : when 
the spirit of a mighty and a numerous people was roused by excess of wrong, 
to make one vast effort for freedom. Under these circumstances, the Gene- 
ral in chief, the officers, and the army, the revenue department, and post- 
masters, all of whom had taken an oath of allegiance to that king, appeal to 
you, inquiring, what is to be done 1 Asking you if the oath was binding. 
What would be your reply 1 

Mr. Campbell. If they had taken a solemn oath, they should not 
break it. 

Bishop Purcell. Then was George Washington a perjurer, and all the 
officers of the army and navy, all the signers of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, and all the subjects of the king of Great Britain were perju- 
rers ! ! 

Mr. Campbell. That does not follow from my answer to your question. 

Bishop Purcell. And what would you have persons to do, who had 
taken the oath of allegiance 1 

Mr. Campbell. " It is better not to vow, than to vow and not pay" — as 
saith the good Book. 

Mr. Campbell rose and said, that for his part, we should always do our 
duty, and leave consequences to God. When he intends the deliverance of a 
people, he will effect for them redemption, as he did for his people out of 
Egypt. 

Bishop Purcell. There is no oath of artificial contrivance, stronger than 
the natural tie between the subject and the king, the governed and the gov- 
ernment ; of whatever form it may be. This is an oath, prior and superi ^r to 
all other oaths. But if those of the colonists, who had not taken a conventional 
oath, or an oath of office, to the king of England, had alone rebelled, what could 
they have done] Were not the army and the civil and military officers bound by 
their oath to resist rebellion 1 How then could human rights have been vin- 
dicated, or human wrongs redressed I You have repeatedly said " vox popnU, 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 315 

vox Dei" in the course of this discussion ; in other words that the 
people's will was the most authentic interpretation of the will of God, 
that it could give a call to the ministry and give to its choice a right 
to exercise spiritual powers ! ! Thus, my friends, you see the dilem- 
ma to which the gentleman has been reduced, and that, while Catho- 
lics are reproached for their slavish tenets, he himself teaches the 
whole doctrine of passive obedience, and condemns the very principle 
of the American Revolution. I leave you to reflect on what the gen- 
tleman has uttered. Now mark the difference. Had my friend deci- 
ded my question, as the Father of his country did similar ones, he 
would have been sustained by the voice and the spirit of the American 
people — and of all denominations thereof, both Catholics and Protest- 
ants, the contemporaries of a struggle in wh':ch, they, who engaged at 
this side the water, " periled every thing but their sacred honor." 
Whereas, the pope, when he absolved from their oath the English 
Catholics, whose were the lands, and the houses, the churches and the 
schools, the hospitals and the glory of England ; whose sufferings ex- 
ceeded those of the American colonists as much as the Alleghanies do 
a grain of sand, decided upon far better grounds than did the sages of 
our Revolution, that passive obedience, under such circumstances, 
ceased to be a virtue. Yet one word more — the absolution was con- 
sidered by those very Catholics, an exceeding of his powers, and they 
did not act upon it. His decision was, for them, no article of faith. 

My friend's next resort, in the way of documentary evidence, is to 
the Encyclopaedia of religious knowledge, just published. He does 
not know the author, or the entire title of the work, nor the history of 
its " getting up." Fessenden is the author of the volume. 

Mr. Campbell. I do know the author, but bishop Purcell does not. 

Bishop Purcell. That is Protestant Jesuitism. He is the pub-^ 
lisher. In the New York Churchman of a recent date, there is a story 
told of a most egregious imposture practised on the patrons of this 
same volume. The editors professed to give the views of the 
different sects, in the very words of their respective standards, or ac- 
credited writers, and carefully disguised the fact, that it was to be sub- 
servient to the interests of one particular sect, the Baptists. They ap- 
plied to an Episcopal minister, to write an article on Episcopacy, and 
to patronize the publication. This looked like fair play — the poor 
minister was caught in the snare and signed his name recommending 
the Encyclopaedia. But lo ! when the work appeared, it was w 7 holly 
opposed to Episcopalianism ; and this flagrant violation of the faith 
due to the public from the publishers, elicited a most cutting, but at 
the same time, most merited castigation from the (Episcopal) Church- 
man. I hope the article will be read, by every sincere enquirer after 
truth, that he may be able to appreciate, according to its value, this 
new humbug. 

We come back to the Jesuits. It was so notorious to Frederick, 
the Great, of Prussia, that the Jesuits had been calumniated, and most 
foully dealt w T ith, that, Protestant, as he was, he received them in his 
dominions, and placed them in many of his colleges. He told the other 
kings of Europe that they would soon be sorry for the expulsion of an 
order that had done so much for literature and science. k "The day will 
come," said he, "when you will be offering me, 300 pounds for a pro- 
curator, 400, for a professor, 600, for a Rector, and a per valorem, for 



^ 



316 DEBATE ON THE 

inferior officers of the Jesuits, but depend upon it, I will fleece you 
well. I will make you pay dearly for your folly." Frederick was a 
great judge of human nature, my friends, and he had a keen sense of 
the superior claims of the Jesuits, for good scholarship, and morality. 
Hence his kingdom and his palace were given them, with his own 
confidence. The celebrated preacher, Bourdaloue, was a Jesuit, and 
who has ever preached a sounder, or a purer morality ? 

My worthy friend said, the Jesuits supported kings and monarchs, 
and were for crushing the people; and most grossly did he contradict 
himself, by stating almost at the same moment, that they were the most 
formidable enemies of kings, and it was for their opposition to their 
measures, that kings banished them from several of the kingdoms of 
Europe. Thus they were, according to his account, the supporters of 
kings and the enemies of kings ! The infamous Pombal of Portugal 
began the crusade against the Jesuits. Read his history, and it will be 
their best vindication — or see them among the savages of Paraguay ! 
This word alone reveals to the intelligent reader, a series of wonders 
performed for God, humanity and virtue, such as the world, perhaps, 
has never witnessed since the establishment of Christianity. 

Next comes the theocracy of the Jews. And is not Jehovah our 
king also 1 Is he not ever Lord over all 1 Do we not acknowledge 
that there is no power but from him 1 My argument was this. If it 
be essentially incompatible with liberty, to obey the same ruler in 
temporal and ecclesiastical things, God could not have established 
such a government on earth. But, God did establish such an author- 
ity; therefore, it is not incompatible with liberty. I do not wish to 
see it now, unless God should vouchsafe to be as manifestly our king, 
as he was the king of the Jews ; which is not to happen under the 
Christian dispensation, as it did under the old law. Christ has de- 
clared, that his kingdom is not of this world. My worthy opponent 
said, that the fleshly body and the heavenly body of Christ, were not 
the same. I ask, then, what became of his fleshly body 1 Did it rot 
in the ground 1 I call on him to answer this question. " Thou wilt 
not leave my soul in hell," says David, " nor wilt thou suffer thy Holy 
One to see corruption." (Ps. xv. 10.) It was spiritualized, but still 
the same body, according to what he said to his disciples, frighted at 
this apparition, supposing they had seen a spirit : " See my hands and 
my feet .- it is myself: handle and see ,• for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, 
as you see me to have" (Luke xxiv. 39.) He is "ever living," 
(Heb. vii. 25,) to make intercession for us, by the eloquent mouths of 
his wounds, which he exhibits, for us, to his Father in heaven. He 
gave them, as he had previously done to Thomas, the signs they 
asked; while he reprehended them, as he did that apostle, "for slow- 
ness of belief" It was thus that, when the Jews murmured for meat 
in the wilderness, loathing as light food the manna of heaven, God 
gave them meat to satiety ; and afterwards, for their unbelief, not only 
excluded them from the land of promise, but scattered their carcases 
in the desert. 

My friend told you, how much afraid he was of Catholics. My 
friends, what a pretty tale he made of it. I was really going to say : 
" Poor baby, do not be so afraid : do not be such a coward : shake off 
those old woman's fears about raw head and bloody bones, and be 
more manly." Washington, though he lived in a less enlightened 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 317 

age than this, was not afraid of Catholics. They stood by his side in 
the battles for freedom. They never flinched, even at the cannon's 
mouth. When he drew his sword for this republic, they followed its 
beaming to victory or to death. La Fayette, and hosts of others, 
whose chaplains had said mass for them in the morning before the 
engagement, bled or conquered in the trenches of liberty. And never 
was greeting more cordial, or triumph more glorious, than theirs, 
when they mingled their salutations and tears with those of their 
American companions in arms, at the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, 
in York-Town. Witness, too, those noble poles, (Kosciusko! may 
his shade rise up, and rebuke this spirit of intolerance !) the Irish, the 
South Americans, all righting for liberty, all Catholics. Look at 
William Tell, a Roman Catholic. Go to Venice, for rive hundred 
years a republic, though surrounded by absolute governments. Look 
at the little republic of San Marino, of which John Adams has related 
the remarkable history. There is not such a people for liberty, on the 
globe, as the Roman Catholics. Look nearer home, at Maryland, 
where the Catholics were the first that proclaimed freedom of 

CONSCIENCE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE ! ! LET THIS BE OUR ANSWER 
TO A THOUSAND SLANDERS. 

I come now to the oath of bishops. I have taken the oath of alle- 
giance to the United States. It was the first I ever took. So have 
all my brethren in the episcopacy taken it. The head of the Catholic 
church in the United States, is an American; so is a large number of 
our clergy. The rest preferred this country, believing there was here, 
what their own country denies, what our constitution guarantees, lib 
erty of conscience. The oath that the bishops take, is not a recogni- 
tion of any temporal power of the pope, out of his own territory, called 
the States of the Church, in Italy. We would never take the oath in 
the odious sense, which my opponent would force upon it. This so- 
lemn and authentic abjuration should, alone, be sufficient to settle this 
account ; for I surely know what I swear to, and that what I here 
state will be seen and read by those, whom no human fear could deter 
from denouncing me for error, if I could be guilty of any, on a point 
with which I ought to be so well informed. The arms of our warfare 
are not carnal, but spiritual. He that takes the sword, we believe 
with Jesus Christ, will die by the sword. Hence, we assume no ob- 
ligations by that oath, but such as God imposes ; and those to be dis- 
charged in his own divine spirit of meekness, charity, and good will. 
It is cruel to impute to us crimes, and to insist that we hold doctrines, 
which we disavow. Suppose I were so base, as to suborn two or 
three wicked men, to calumniate my friend Mr. Campbell, and to pre- 
tend that he was in active correspondence, for treasonable purposes, 
with some foreign king, ought my opponent to be condemned unheard ] 
And, in the absence of proof, should we, in spite of all his protesta- 
tions to the contrary, condemn him on suspicion'? And, if any family 
had their reputation blasted by some base miscreant, ought this to 
destroy their estimation in society, where his baseness is known ] All 
the ministers in the world may exert their talents and influence, to 
preserve and promote peace and love among mankind ; bat as long as 
differences in religion are suffered to create jealousy, distrust, and ha- 
tred between brethren ; and certain men make it their trade, to go 
from town to town, for the express purpose of fanning these emb#rs 
2 b '2 



318 DEBATE ON THE 

of discord, fomenting this hatred ; so long will the purest and best 
men continue to be the victims of the malevolent, and our religion, and 
our constitution, prove to be no more than the idlest day-dream. All 
the kings and states of Europe, Protestant and Catholic, know that 
the bishops take that oath, and yet, in none of them is a bishop looked 
upon with distrust. In Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, England, the 
government never molests a bishop about an oath, which is known to 
contain nothing at which the most captious statesman could justly take 
exception. Is not this sufficient proof, that there is in that oath noth- 
ing of what my friend attributes to it. I assure him, Catholic bish- 
ops are not the enemies that this republic needs to fear. 

Every argument my friend employs against the Eucharist, only 
proves him an inconsistent reasoner, or a deist, as far as the argument 
goes. The paschal lamb was a figure of the eucharist, and the figure 
was surely nobler than the reality, if we have nothing better than a 
bit of bread in the eucharist. But the apostle tells us that the weak 
and beggarly elements of the Jewish rites, were to obtain their glori- 
ous fulfilment in the land of grace — and only in the Catholic church 
is this verified. We eat the paschal lamb sprinkled with, or in other 
words, veiled beneath the appearance of bread ; and every objection 
urged against the real presence is equally strong, or weak against the 
incarnation. Can this paste, says Mr. C. be God ] I answer by an- 
other question : can this informal embryo in a virgin's womb be God ! 

We come now to Scotus. The gentleman says he heard or saw 
him quoted by the Catholics. He says many people quote Zoroas- 
ter and Confucius without knowing any thing about them. There is 
no parallel between them. If a man quotes, as evidence, a writer, 
like Scotus, he ought to know who he was. I do not blame him for 
knowing nothing of Chinese theology. But of Christian theology, 
it is a shame for a man, who pretends to be, himself, a teacher in Isra- 
el, and a polemic, who challenges Catholic. bishops, to be so grossly 
ignorant. 

My friend says we bow to the pope. In England, Protestants bow 
to the foot-stool of the throne. I bow to any friend I meet — I do not 
pay him, nor the pope divine honor. We know the meaning of our 
own bows, and words, and oaths, and would not pledge them insin- 
cerely, much less blasphemously. No wonder that the pope let him- 
self he persuaded to do good, in the case cited by my friend. Should 
he have preferred a contrary course 1 Have done evil 1 

Temporal power is inferior to spiritual power, as human power is 
inferior to divine; just as heaven is superior to earth, in dignity and 
value, and God superior to creatures, in every divine excellence, but 
not in the sense that he who has been invested with spiritual power 
by God, has also been invested by him, in a kingdom which is not of 
this world, with temporal power. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest 
scholar of the 13th century, and eminent scholar in the dark ages, 
read his works, with those of a Kempis, for proofs of Catholic piety, 
instead of garbled extracts from forgeries, and the works of apostates, 
whom we discarded from our communion for immoralities, which no 
Protestant communion would tolerate. They breathe the spirit of 
devotion, the spirit of God, 

My friends, Mr. Kinmont will now tell you whether the pretended 
quotation of Mr. Smith from Liguori, is correct. You will recollect 
that Mr. Smith said, that, according to Liguori, the Catholic church 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 319 

allows priests to keep concubines upon a fine. Upon hearing this I 
at once said that the charge was an infamous falsehood; and I will ;- , 
now show that Liguori said no such thing ; that Liguori says the con- 
trary. If I tell a falsehood Mr. Kinmont will confound me ; if I t 
do not, somebody does. Thus truth will triumph and falsehood be 
confounded. 

Mr. Kinmont. I am called on in my professional character sim- 
ply, and have no part or lot in this debate, (Mr. K. is understood to 
be a Swedenborgian) I sincerely believe they are disputing about 
shadows, and that both parties are equally in the wrong ; but I will 
do what I can to assist in clearing up the difficulty of fact. I find 
it stated in Samuel Smith's work and marked as a quotation from 
Liguori under the article headed " concubines of clergy." 

CONCUBINES gf the CLERGY. — "A bishop however poor he may be, cannot 
appropriate to himself pecuniary fines without Ihe license of the Apostolical 
See. But he ought to apply them to pious uses. Much less can he apply those 
fines to any thing else but pious uses, which the Council of Trent has laid upon 
non-resident clergymen, or upon those clergymen who keep concubines." — Ligor. 
Ep. Doc. Mor. p. 444. 

And the following is Smith's commentary. — IS 

How shameful a thing, that the Apostolical See, as they call it, that is, that 
the pope of Rome, should enrich his coffers by the fines which he receives from 
the profligacy of his Clergy! If they keep concubines, they must pay a fine 
for it; but if they marry, they must be excommunicated ! This accounts, at 
once, for the custom in Spain, and other countries, and especially on the island 
of Cuba, and in South America; where almost every priest has concubines, who 
are known by the name of nieces. These abandoned men are willing to pay 
the fine rather than forego the gratification of their lustful appetites. The 
" NARRATIVE OF Rosamond," who was once herself one of these concu- 
bines, in the island of Cuba, portrays the general licentiousness of the popish 
clergy, in colors so shocking, that the picture cannot be looked at without a 
blush. Here we see the doctrine fully exemplified by practice. This keeping 
of concubines, is a thing so common in the popish West India islands, and in 
South America, that it is rarely noticed. The offspring of this priestly inter- 
course are numerous. They are known to be the children of the priests; but, 
because it is the general custom, it is lawful; and it passes off merely with a 
joke or sarcasm. 

This is the text and commentary as I find it in Mr. Smith's book. 
This is marked as Liguori, p. 444. If taken from Liguori at all, it is 
taken from a different edition. The present purports to be a complete 
copy of the works of Liguori. It bears no mark of being an expur- 
gated edition. It is said to be an edition of what was said andtvritten 
before with additions. On turning to the place where he treats of fines 
and punishments inflicted for concubinage, he says that priests guilty 
of this offence, were, after two ineffectual reprimands, to be degraded 
from their functions. He refers to the council of Trent, and states 
what that council decreed, Smith throws us on Liguori, and Liguori 
on the council of Trent. There is nothing in Liguori relating to that 
subject but this. The council was called about the year 1542. This 
edition of the decrees of the council was edited by the council itself. 
I have had an abstract taken which I will read. It would take some 
time to read the original, and I have a translation made by one of my 
scholars. I will read this. 

" In the records of the decrees of the council of Trent, Session 25th, chap. 
14th, there is described the method of proceeding in the cases of clergy, who 
are guilty of concubinage. 

After shewing the scandal and enormity of this sin, especially in clergy, whose 
integrity of life, should recomnieud and impress the precepts of religion and of 



320 DEBATE OS THE 

the church; the sacred synod forbids that any individual holding the clerical 
office shall keep at his house or elsewhere, any mistress or unchaste woman or 
cohabit with any such, under the penalty of having enforced against him the 
sacred canons, and ecclesiastical statutes regarding that matter. It is, then, espe- 
cially enacted that if when admonished by their superiors they shall not desist 
from all such unlawful and forbidden acts, they shall be deprived of the third 
part of all their revenues and ecclesiastical dues: and if still persevering in their 
course, they shall not even heed a second admonition, they shall be deprived of 
all their ecclesiastical revenue, and suspended from the administration of eccle- 
siastical junctions; and if, during this suspension, they shall continue obstinate 
and incorrigible, they shall be declared altogether unfit and incompetent to ex- 
ercise any spiritual office whatever belonging to the church; unless after a clear 
and unequivocal amendment of life, the church should think proper to with- 
draw the disqualification, and allow them to resume their former station of 
honor and trust. But if after the resumption of the duties of their office, they 
should resort to those impure practices which they had abandoned, besides the 
infliction of the above named penalties, an act of excommunication with its 
sword of justice shall cut them off", as dead branches from the body of the faith- 
ful and church of the living God. And it is farther enacted that no appeal, or 
exemption shall hinder the execution of any of these decrees, but that they shall 
be summarily executed, at the will of the bishop, after he has ascertained the 
existence of the enormities. A similar provision in its effects and spirit is made 
with relation to bishops themselves, but the order of proceeding is different.'* 
This is in substance the provision of the decree of the council of Trent. Sess. 
25, cap. 14. [Time expired.] 



SATURDAY, January 24th, Half-past 9 o'clock, A. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises — 

Under any other circumstances than the present, I should have in- 
sisted on being allowed the same number of minutes over my stipu- 
lated hour, which my friend has taken with Mr. Kinmont's exposi* 
tion, over his usual time. 

Bishop Purcell. — I have no objection to Mr. Campbell's occupy- 
ing that much more time. It is right that he should. 

Mr. Campbell. I feel obliged to the gentleman for his courtesy, 
and will therefore proceed. My friends, you will doubtless have ob- 
served, that of all the extracts read from Ligori, found on the pages 
of Smith, but one was challenged by the Bishop, on the ground that 
it is not found in the page of St. Ligori in the edition now before us. 
The case is simply this. According to the moral theology of the church 
of Rome, marriage is a greater sin than concubinage : for, if a priest 
marry, he is forthwith excommunicated ; but if he keep a concubine 
he only pays a fine. This is the statement that Mr. Smith makes . 
and translates the passage in Ligori as follows : 

" A bishop, however poor he may be, cannot appropriate to himself pecuniary 
fines without the license of the Apostolical see. But he ought to apply them 
to pious uses. Much less can he apply those fines to any thing else but pious 
uses, which the council of Trent has laid upon non-resident clergymen, or upon 
these clerg-vmeniclio keep concubines^ Ligor. Ep. Doc. Mor. p. 444. 

Now, Bishop Purcell denies that there is such a passage in Ligo- 
ri, or that there is in the council of Trent any such arrangement ; and 
in proof of it, he has brought us an edition of St. Ligori, and the de- 
crees of the council of Trent. But the edition w T hich he has produ- 
ced, has not, upon the page referred to, the passage quoted. In the 
passage quoted, the reference to Ligori is to ?, decree of Trent. But 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 321 

there are always two ways of quoting a passage : the one verbatim ; 
and the other, substantially. Whether Ligori quotes the decree of 
Trent literally, or only quotes the substance, we cannot affirm. The 
bishop referred this matter to Mr. Kinmont, without consulting me. 
It was an exparte reference ; and therefore, comes not fairly before 
us. Although I have no objection to Mr. Kinmont ; but en the con- 
trary, I think him very- competent to decide a matter of this kind, if 
he had time to examine all these volumes : and perhaps, had I been 
consulted, I should have agreed in selecting him : yet as the refer- 
ence is wholly one sided ; it can have no authority here. However, 
so far as the decrees of Trent have been read, they do speak of fines 
or forfeitures of those who have concubines, and these do substan- 
tially sustain all that I have alleged. 

I have this morning received a paper of Mr. Smith's, in which I 
find an article " on the authority of Ligori" which I will now read. 

" Alphcmsus de Ligori was canonized by Pope Pius VII. on the 15th of Sep- 
tember, A. D. 1815, under the title of the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend 
Lord Alphonsus de Ligorio. He has written the Modern Theology of the 
church of Rome, in nine large volumes, containing 4701 pages, which was pub- 
lished at Mechlin, Superiorum Permissu, A. D. 1828. 

His Theology is called, in the preface of the work, "The Light." His doc- 
trine after having been explored, was approved of by Pope Pius, VII. on the 
18th May, 1803, after the Sacred Congregation of Rites had given it their sanc- 
tion, and had declared that there was NOTHING IN IT WORTHY OF CENSURE. 
Ligori was spoken of by the sacred Pontiff, Leo XII. in the highest terms; and 
his eminence the Serene Cardinal of Castile, the Major Penitentiary, in his letters 
to the Bishop of Massilien, says, that Saint Ligori is not only an ornament to the 
Episcopal character by the illustrious splendor of his virtues; but he shines re- 
splendent by his sound doctrine, which is according to God. Doctrinam 
sanctam, ac secundum Deum." (Pref. Editoris.) 

In his preface to his Synopsis Mr. Smith observes : 

"If they deny that we have given a fair translation, we will then challenge 
them to come forward in a public assembly with the works of St. Ligori, when we 
promise to meet them, and submit our translation, and the original, to the inspec- 
tion of a committee, one half of whom to be chosen by ourselves, and the other 
half by the Roman clergy. Truth never shuns investigation. If we have not 
given a fair, genuine, and true translation, and if we have not exhibited the doc- 
trines of Ligori, and the church of Rome fairly and correctly, without garbling, 
or giving an erroneous construction, we will be willing to incur the consequences 
that we ought to expect, for having deceived the public." Synop. Pref. p. 12. 

I will thank the Bishop to inform me the date of his edition of the 
works of Ligori. 

Bishop Purcell. — What is the date of Mr. Smith's edition 1 

Mr. Campbell.— -1828. 

Bishop Purcell. — This edition [pointing to his own] was also 
published in 1828 : so that it appears both are the same. 

Mr. Campbell [here taking up a volume of tire Bishop's copy of 
Ligori read] " Editio Nova Emendata," It hence appears that the 
Bishop's, is a new amended edition ,• so that, probably, this and the 
one used by Mr. Smith are not the same. Be this, however as it may, 
nothing is lost by the examination : nothing is proved against Mr. 
Smith as a translator, and I shall write forthwith to New York to Mr. 
$mith for the original Latin of this passage in his edition, and have 
it certified and published among this community. 

But were it lawful to read in this assembly, I have before me the de- 
crees of councils, and the words of bishops and cardinals, teaching 
the very doctrine which the Bishop would represent as a reproach 
or calumny on his clergy and church. Here is the decree of a coun- 

41 



c 



322 DEBATE ON THE 

cil at Toledo, and here are references to various councils, such as Bi- 
vii Concilia, Tom, I. pp. 737, 739. Crabb. Concil. Tom. I. p. 449. 
Edition of 1551, and Pithou Corp. Ju. Canon, p. 47, as quoted by Dr. 
Brownlee, which go to prohibit priests "from keeping more than one 
concubine" and declare marriage in a priest to be " a mortal sin." 
And here is Costerus and cardinal Campygio who taught what I dare 
not read here ; but I will reserve all this for a more convenient season. 

[Mr. Campbell here called for the reading again of the seventh 
proposition, which being read by Mr. Piatt, one of the Moderators, 
he proceeded.] 

About the year 1088, Urban II. decrees: 

" That subjects are by no authority constrained to pay the fidelity which they 
have sworn to a christian prince, who opposeth God and his saints, or violateth 
their precepts.' An instance whereof we have in his granting a privilege to the 
canons of Tours; * which/ saith he, 'if any emperor, king, prince, &c. shall 
wilfully attempt to thwart, let him be deprived of the dignity of his honor and 
power." [Barrow, p. 22. 

Again, the council of Toledo still more fully expresses the spirit 
of the age. 

" We tiie holy council promulge this sentence or decree, pleasing to God, that 
whosoever hereafter shall succeed to the kingdom, shall not mount the throne, 
till he has sworn among other oaths, to permit no man to live in his kingdom, 
who is not a Catholic. And if after he has taken the reins of government, he 
shall violate his promise, let him be anathema maranatha, in the sight of the 
eternal God, and become fuel of eternal fire — pabulum ignis aeterni. [Caranza, 
p. 404. 

Innocent III. (that true wonder of the world and changer of the 
age) affirms : 

•* Under Pope Innocent, III. it was ordained, that if any temporal lord, being 
required and admonished by the church, should neglect to purge his territory 
from heretical filth, he should by the metropolitan and the other comprovincial 
bishops, be noosed in the band of excommunication ; and that if he should slight 
to make satisfaction within a year, it should be signified to the Pope, that he 
might from that time denounce the subjects absolved from their fealty to him, 
and expose the territory to be seized on by Catholics." Barrow, p. 22. 

Adrian I. A. D. 772, thus decrees: 

•* We do by general decree constitute, that whatever king, or bishop, or po- 
tentate, shall hereafter believe, or permit, that the censure of the Roman pon- 
tiffs may be violated in any case, he shall be an execrable anathema, and shall be 
guilty before God, as a betrayer of the Catholic faith." P. Had. I. Capit apud 
Grat. Caus. xxv. qu. I. c. 11. 

Leo IX. says, that Constantine M. " did think it very unbecoming 
that they should be subject to an earthly empire, whom the Divine 
Majesty had set over an heavenly." Of Gregory II. who lived 
A. D. 730, Barronius says, " He effectually caused both the Romans 
and Italians to recede from obedience to the emperor." " So," con- 
tinues this authentic historian, — " he did leave to posterity a worthy 
example that heretical princes should not be suffered to reign in the 
church of Christ, if being warned they should be found pertinacious 
in error." To consummate the whole, Gregory II. did say to the em- 
peror Isauros : " All the kingdoms of the west did hold St. Peter as 
an earthly God." 

Wishing to crowd as much into this speech as I possibly can in 
one hour, I shall, with as much rapidity as is consistent with distinct- 
ness of enunciation, hasten through many documents. Thus we have 
seen, that for at least five centuries, the heads of the Roman church 
clearly and unambiguously taught, that the spiritual sword was above 
the temporal, and that the vicar of Christ is by a divine right Lord 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 323 

of thrones and all earthly things. This, I have no doubt, is the true 
doctrine of the immutable and infallible church of Rome ! and certain 
it is, that it has never been disowned, or renounced, by a general 
council, the organ of infallibility. If the church of Rome be insus- 
ceptible of reformation, or infallible ; it is proved to be essentially 
anti- American, and opposed to the genius of our institutions. 

To resume the bishop's oath. The gentleman at length admitted 
that he had taken the bishop's oath, by saying, that he took the oath 
of naturalization first ! ! There is but one oath for Roman bishops in 
all countries, therefore, the Bishop is sworn to " increase and advance 
the authority of the pope," and persecute and oppose (fight against) 
heretics and schismatics. If he have not taken this oath, he will please 
refer us to the oath he has sworn, and specify its peculiarities. 

The defence is a very singular one. He first swore allegiance to 
the United States, and then to that foreign prince the pope. Does he 
mean, contrary to common usage, that the first oath is more binding 
than the second ; or, that it neutralizes the anti- American attributes 
of the second. But his explanation is but half given in the first point, 
that he took the oath of American allegiance before he took the oath 
of Roman allegiance. The other ground of defence was in the 
query, which, with such a triumphant air, he put to me yesterday 
evening — viz. whether I would not have been justified in breaking 
my oath to England, had I been an American colonist or soldier at 
the time of the revolution, when the king tyrannized over the Ameri- 
cans 1 I have already answered this question, and have affirmed that 
in Protestant doctrine, no circumstance or contingency, can ever ab- 
solve a person from the obligation of an oath, into which he has in- 
telligently and voluntarily entered. It is in the estimation of chris- 
tians most impious and daring for any prince or pope to presume to 
absolve men from the obligations of an oath solemnly taken. If, in- 
deed, an oath has in it the nature of a covenant, then one of the 
parties failing, so far vacates the covenant as to set the other free 
from his oath : but this is not absolution for breaking it ; it is a simple 
annulling of its conditions. Now, in the case supposed, the king of 
England was generally allowed to have receded from the conditions 
on which that oath was taken by the persons who renounced alle- 
giance to him ; he having failed to protect and cherish his American 
subjects, according to the tenor of the charter given, they were freed 
from the obligations of allegiance. But I beg my audience to re- 
member that the bishop attempts to defend himself for breaking his 
oath in certain contingencies : else, why ask me such a question ? 
The bishop's plea is, therefore, that oaths maybe broken, and that 
the pope can absolve men from allegiance on a justifiable emergency, 
when the church, or some other great interest may demand it ! Of 
what use then is the oath of naturalization ] — 

That the incompatibility of the bishop's oath with our oath of al- 
legiance may be obvious, I shall quote the oath of naturalization, as 
proposed to every foreigner by the laws of the United States : 

The laws of the U. S. provide; That any alien, being a free white person, 
inay be admitted to become a citizen of theU. S. or any of them, on the follow- 
ing condition, and not otherwise: That he shall have declared on oath, or affir- 
mation, before the supreme superior, district, or circuit court, of some one of 
the states, or a court of record, having a clerk and seal— 3 \ ears at least before 
admission. 



324 



DEBATE ON THE 



ist. Oath of Intention. 

"That it was bonaf.de, his intention to become a citizen of the U. S. and to 
renounce forever, all allegiance and fidelity, to any foreign Prince, Potentate, 
State or Sovereignty, whatsoever; and particularly, by name, the Prince, Poten- 
tate, State or Sovereignty, whereof he may, at the time be a citizen or subject. 

That he shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare, on oath 
or affirmation, before a court as above. 

2d. Oath of Renunciation, Abjuration, Sfc. and of Fidelity on Admission. 

" That he will support the constitution of the U. S. and that he doth absolutely 
and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign 
Prince, Potentate, State or Sovereignty whatever; and particularly by name 
the Prince, Potentate, State, Sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or 
subject. 

The court admitting the alien to be satisfied that he has resided five years 
within the U. S. one year in the state, and that he has behaved as a man of 
good mora! character, attached to' the principles of the constitution of the U. S. 
and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. The residence 
to be proved by a witness, not by oath of the applicant. 

Where a person coming into the United States 3 years before 21 years of age, 
proving same character, and continued residence 5 years, admitted as before 
stated on the first application, on taking final oath of abjuration, renunciation, 
fidelity, &c. without the first oath of intention. 

Further provided; That in case the alien applying to be admitted to citizen- 
ship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of No- 
bility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall in addition to the 
above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of Nobility, 
at the time to be recorded, &c. 

Further provided — That no alien who shall be a native citizen, denizen, or 
subject of any country, state or sovereign, with whom the U. S. shall be at war at 
the time of his application, shall be then admitted to be a citizen of the U. S." 
&c. &c. 

Such are the oaths and laws of naturalization. Now, as the pope 
of Rome is a foreign prince — at this very moment a prince temporal 
as well as spiritual, exercising political authority over the states of 
Home, and claiming allegiance in temporals as well as spirituals, 
throughout the whole Roman Catholic world ; 1 ask, can any one 
who has sworn " to increase and advance his authority," or feeling 
himself so bound, as he shall answer for it to the supreme judge of the 
universe, take or keep the oath of citizenship in this country without 
perjury'?! In my most deliberate judgment, it is impossible. 

The case is simply this : The oath of naturalization requires the 
candidate for citizenship to swear that he does absolutely and entirely 
renounce all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, 
state, or sovereignty. Now, the pope of Rome is a sovereign of Eu- 
rope — a foreign potentate, issuing bulls, laws, or briefs, throughout 
the world ; often to secure, augment and advance his authority, in 
temporals, as well as spirituals ; as the testimony of 500 years now 
before you, amply demonstrates ; and every Roman Catholic layman 
feeling a paramount obligation to his bishop, and through him to the 
pope ; and all the rulers of the Roman Catholic church, being sworn 
to the pope absolutely and forever, I ask, can such persons in good 
faith solemnly swear allegiance to this government ] If a person can 
be sworn to support two antagonist constitutions, governments, powers, 
— two masters, as opposite as the poles : then may he, without per- 
jury, swear to our government, and to that of papal Rome ! 

But bishops are sworn " to persecute and oppose (persequar et im- 
pugnaho) heretics and schismatics. Papal Rome is and always has 
been, a persecuting government. She is essentially so. I intend not 
now to dwell much on this theme. But I will sustain my proposition. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 325 

And first, I admit that Protestants have persecuted, — that they have 
persecuted even to death. I deny it not ; and therefore my opponent 
need not prove it. It is a matter of record indisputable however, 
that their persecutions have not been as a drop to the ocean, in compa- 
rison of papal persecutions. Still they have persecuted, and we frank- 
ly own it. But we have an excuse for them. The first Protestants 
after the Lutheran Reformation, came out from a bloody and cruel 
mother, who had accustomed them to blood and slaughter, and taught 
them that the blood of heretics was a sacrifice, most acceptable to 
God. They were taught that it was just to destroy thieves, rob- 
bers, and murderers ; and that heretics were the worst of thieves", 
robbers, and murderers, and ought when incorrigible to be slain : for 
so the good of society did imperiously demand. — As soon as they 
got out of the great city, they began to contend among themselves, 
whether persecution was right. They soon saw it was of the manners 
and customs of Babylon ; and that " all who take the sword must 
perish by the sword ;" therefore they laid it down. They have ab- 
jured it in their creeds and remonstrances against the papacy; and we 
rejoice to state the fact, that there is not in Protestant Christendom 
a single creed that does not repudiate persecution and assert the great 
principle of christian and religious liberty. 

But I have said that papal Rome is essentially a persecuting power 
— still a persecuting monarchy ; because she has it yet written in her 
infallible and immutable decrees of councils, in the bulls and ana- 
themas of her popes ; and in the constitution of her inquisitions, which 
as a church she still acknowledges and maintains. A few of her in- 
fallible decrees must be accepted as a specimen, 

44 In the fifth council of Toledo, Can. 3rd, the holy fathers say, * We the holy 
council promulge this sentence, or decree pleasing to God, That whosoever 
hereafter shall succeed to the kingdom, shall not mount the throne till he has 
sworn amon^ other oaths, to permit no man to live in his kingdom who is not a 
Catholic. (Nullum non Catholicum.) And if after he has taken the reins of go- 
vernment, he shall violate this promise, let him be anathema maranatha in the 
sight of the eternal God, and become fuel for the eternal fire, (Pabulum ignis 
eeterni.) Caranza Sum. Conciliorum, p. 404. 

The great Lateran council under Innocent III. who instituted the in- 
quisition and transubstantiation, has still more expressly decreed : 

" We excommunicate, and anathematize all heresy, condemning all heretics, 
by what names soever they are called. * * * * * 

These being condemned, must be left to the secular power to be punished. 
And those who are only suspected of heresy, if they purge not themselves in the 
appointed way, are to be excommunicated, and if within a year satisfaction is not 
given, they are to be condemned as heretics. 

They must take this oath. — " That they will endeavor, bona fide, and with all 
their might, to exterminate from every part of their dominions all heretical sub- 
jects, universally, that are marked out to them by the church. So that from 
this time forward, when any one is promoted to any power temporal or spiritual, 
he shall be obliged to confirm this. But if any temporal lord, being required 
and admonished by the church, shall neglect to purge his land from this here- 
tical filthiness, he shall be tied up in the band of excommunication by the me- 
tropolitan and his comprovincial bishops. And if he should neglect to make 
satisfaction within a year, it should be signified to the pope, that he mi^ht from 
that time pronounce the subjects absolved from allegiance to him, and expose 
his territories to be seized on by Catholics, who expelling heretics, shall pos- 
sess them without contradiction. 

But Catholics, who having taken the badge of the cross, shall set themselves 
to extirpate heretics, shall enjoy the same indulgence and be fortified with the 
same privilege, as is granted to those who go to the recovery of the holy land," 

sc 



326 DEBATE ON THE 

And, to save time, be it emphatically observed, that the council of 
Trent fully established, adopted, and re-promulged these decrees, and 
they are, at this moment, in full force at Rome. Until, then, a general 
council is called, and makes fallible the decisions of the great Lateran 
council ; such is, and must be the dictum and belief of the Roman 
church ; and, as I judge, there never will be another general council, 
this will ever be the doctrine of papal Rome, till the day of her death. 
Is this, I emphatically ask, the genius and spirit of republican 
America ] 

But edicts, canons, and decrees, are not a dead letter. They have 
been all personified, and acted out to the letter. Who has not heard 
of that personification of every thing that is diabolically cruel — the 
Holy Office of the Inquisition 1 What abuse of language ! Think 
not, my friends, that I will rake up its ashes ; that I will rehearse its 
horrible racks, and engines, and instruments of torture ; that I will 
describe a single auto da fe, one of the horrid tragedies of the acts of 
faith, whose flagrance language fails to speak. " It was the vice of 
the age," my opponent has said. Of what age ] Of Innocent III. ! 
Of the era of transubstantiation ] No, indeed ; but of the age of Na- 
poleon ; of the age of pope Pius, the saint of 1814 ! Yes, of the pres- 
ent age ! It was got up, indeed, by Innocent (inapposite name !) III., 
and was fully in operation in Italy, A. D. 1251. Its first officer, Do- 
minic, was afterwards made a saint ! In Spain and Portugal it was 
perfected ; and its reign of terror, in unfigurative truth, transcends all 
description. My soul sickens at the thought. In Spain alone, from 
1481 to 1814, about half a million suffered by it. Lorente (Paris 
edit. torn. iv. p. 271,) sets down the victims of one department of tor- 
ment, those burnt, at 33,912 ; and of other rigorous punishments, at 
291,450. He is, by other historians, supposed to be far below the 
full amount. From the records of the inquisition, the manuscripts 
taken from the inquisitorial palace at Barcelona, when taken by siege 
in 1828, one may reckon, that in all Spain, in a little over three centu- 
ries, half a million suffered all manner of cruelties from this infernal 
tribunal. 

It was even employed as a means of converting the heathen, in pa- 
gan lands. It is said, that 800 persons have been condemned at one 
session, by one of its tribunals. And, still worse, in Seville, in the 
year 1481, 2000 persons were condemned to the flames, and 20,000 
more to inferior punishments. Such were the tender mercies of these 
Roman gospel arguments to save men's souls from hell ! It was the 
vice of a dark age, and yet restored by Pius VII. in 1826 ! ! What! 

But, this is only one of the tribunals of persecution : it was only 
one of the means of persecuting and destroying heretics and schis- 
matics. Shall I relate the persecutions of the Waldenses and Albigen- 
ses, and other Protestants, sometimes called Lollards, Wickliffites, 
Hugonots, &c. &c? Shall I tell of the millions in France, Spain, 
Portugal, Holland, England, Ireland, and elsewhere ] Shall I tell of 
the massacre of St. Bartholomew's day] of the persecutions conse- 
quent upon the revocation of the edict of Nantz 1 or the Irish massa- 
cre? and of all the other deeds of horror] I shall not attempt it. I 
cannot describe the slaughter of two millions, in the early crusades 
against Jews and infidels; nor of fifteen millions of Indians and pa- 
gans ; nor of a million Waldenses, murdered and banished in a single 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 327 

generation ! I say, again, 1 cannot relate these heart-stirring scenes ; 
and I shall only say, that historians and martyrologists variously give 
the aggregate from fifty to sixty-eight millions of human beings, that 
have been sacrificed and devoured by this Moloch ; this insatiable de- 
mon of persecution, as taught in theory and carried out in practice, by 
her who calls herself Holy Mother ! ! ! What a scarlet, crimsoned, 
cruel mother she is ! On her will be avenged the blood of all martyrs. 
Even the persecutions of those whom she taught to persecute, lie just- 
ly chargeable against her. What guarantee, then, have we that this be- 
ing the native spirit of the system, it would not again repeat the same 
tragic scenes, in any country where it obtains an ascendancy 1 'Tis 
true, indeed, that the Protestant powers in Europe hold it now in 
check. But, were these removed, from what premises would we in- 
fer, that the same means would not be resorted to in this and every 
Protestant country, so soon as this kind mother should feel it a duty, 
" to extirpate heresy" out of the land 1 ! 

The doctrine is actually taught in her New Testament, in the notes 
appended to the Rhemish version. I will give you a passage or two, 

"And when his disciples James and John had seen it, they said, Lord wilt thou 
we say that fire come down from heaven, and consume them? And turning-, he 
rebuked them, saying, you know not of what spirit you are." Luke ix.54, 55. 

u Ver. 55. He rebuked them. Not justice nor all rigorous punishment of 
sinners is here forbidden, Elias' fact reprehended, nor the church or chris- 
tian princes blamed for putting heretics to death: but that none of these should 
be done for desire of our particular revenge, or without discretion, and regard 
to their amendment, and example to others. Therefore, Peter used his power 
upon Ananias and Sapphira, when he struck them both down to death for c/e- 
jrauding the church." Rhem. N. Test. p. 109. 

This is a mistake. Peter struck not Ananias and Sapphira for de- 

{rauding the church, (as these purblind commentators say ;) but the 
iord himself struck them dead, for lying against the Holy Spirit. 
Christian princes, thus, in reading the Roman Testament, are taught 
to put heretics to death. 

44 And many of them that had followed curious things, brought together their 
books and burnt them before all: and counting the prices of them, they found the 
money to be fifty thousand pence." Acts xix. 19. 

" Ver. 19. Books. A christian man is bound to burn or deface all wicked books 
of what sort soever, especially heretical books. Which though they infect not 
him always that keepeth them, yet being forth coming, they may be noisome 
and pernicious to other that shall have them and read them after his death, or 
otherwise. Therefore hath the church taken order for condemning all such 
books, and against the reading of them where danger may ensue: and the chris- 
tian emperors, Constantius,Magnus, Valentinian, Theodosius, Marcian, Justin- 
ian, made penal laws for the burning or defacing them." lb. p. 207. 

This proscription of heretical books is of the same spirit, a part of 
the same system, and explains the march of papistical uniformity and 
unity ! 

" As we have said before, so now I say again, if any evangelize to you, beside 
that which you have received, be he anathema." Gal. i. 9. 

** Hierome useth this place, wherein the apostle giveth the curse, or ana- 
thema to all false teachers, not once, but twice, to prove that the zeal of Catholic 
men ought to be so great toward all heretics, and their doctrines, that they 
should give them the anathema, though they were never so dear unto them. 
In which case, saith this holy Doctor, I would not spare mine own parents." Id. 
p. 292. 

This is stronger still. " I would not spare mine own parents !" 
This is the spirit, the naked spirit of the system, pure and unmixed. 
Remember, then, my friends, that children ought to inform against 



328 DEBATE ON THE 

their own parents, and brother against brother, for the extirpation of 
heresy ! 

44 And I saw the woman drunken of the blood of the Saints and of the blood 
of the mart} r rs of Jesus." Rev. xvii. 6. 

Ver. 6. Drunken of the blood. It is plain, that this woman signifieth the 
whole corps of all the persecutors that have and shall shed so much blood of 
the just : of the prophets, apostles, and other martyrs, from the beginning of 
the world to the end. The Protestants possibly expound it of Rome, for that 
they put heretics to death, and allow of their punishment in other countries : 
But their blood is not called the blood of saints, no more than the blood of 
thieves, mankillers, and other malefactors: for the shedding of which by order 
of justice, no commonwealth shall answer." Id. p. 430. 

No commonwealth, consequently no member of it, shall suffer for 
killing heretics. If I have not sustained this proposition, 1 can prove 
nothing. If these facts and documents can be set aside by rhetorical 
declamation, or reckless denial ; then are history, and testimony, and 
fact, of no value in controversy. 

Another specification comes under this proposition. I have too many 
of them for the occasion. I must be brief. This is the divorcing, re- 
pelling, disorganizing, and demoralizing dogma, that " no faith should 
be kept with heretics." 

Gregory VII., in a council at Rome, declares : 

44 We following the statutes of our predecessors, do, by our apostolic author- 
ity, absolve all those from their oath of fidelity, who are bound to eoccommvni- 
cated persons, either by duty or oath; and we unloose them from every tie of 
obedience, till the excommunicated persons have made proper satisfaction." 
Decret. 2 part. caus. 15. quest. 6. 

Urban II. teaches the same doctrine : 

44 You are to discharge the soldiers who have sworn fidelity to count Hugo, 
from paying any obedience while he is excommunicated: for they are not obliged 
to keep that fidelity inviolate, which ibvv have sworn to a christian prince^ who 
opposes God, and his saints, and desp*£&s their precepts." Ibid. 

Gregory IX. has laid down the general principle, with the greatest 
care and precision : 

44 Be it known to all who are under the dominion of heretics, that they are 
set free from every tie of fidelity and duty to them; all oaths or solemn agree- 
ment to the contrary notwithstanding-." Decret. Greg. lib. 5, tit. 7. 

Hear now the decree of the council of Constance, in the case of 
John Huss, and Jerome of Prague ; who appeared there under the 
solemn pledge of the imperial protection. 

44 Council of Constance, 1414, did solemnly decree that no faith is to be kept 
with an heretic. The person who has given them the safe conduct to come 
thither, shall not in this case be obliged to keep his promise by whatever tie he 
may have been engaged, when he has done all that has been in his power to do." 
Bruce. Free Thought, p. 120. 

The council of Constance then, not only so decided ; but caused 
those men, who appeared before them under an imperial pledge, to be 
taken and burned. Thus faith was not to be kept with heretics accord- 
ing to said decree, and the practice under it by these " holy fathers 1" 

To confirm the whole with the utmost brevity I would add, the ho- 
ly, infallible, and last council of Trent formally recognized this de- 
cree of the council of Constance. It is then the standing and unrepealed 
doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, which must be as immutable 
and infallible as the council of Trent. 

Next we must notice the proscription of books as another specifi- 
cation. 

The council of Trent in its 25th session, decreed that a council 
under the pope should draw up and publish an index of books which 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 329 

were to be prohibited in the church. Thus commenced and keeping 
pace with the introduction of liberal, or Protestant, or anti-Roman 
Catholic volumes it has grown into a respectable volume ; so that 
one of the finest libraries might be collected out of these proscribed 
books. Among these is the bible, which is said to have been the 
first prohibited in the council of Toloso. In the 4th of the 10 rules 
concerning prohibited books established by the Holy Fathers of the 
council of Trent, a license to read the bible is put into the control of 
bishops and inquisitors. But he that presumes to " read without 
such license cannot receive absolution of sins." Among these prohib- 
ited books also are those of Locke, Milton, Bacon, Grotius, Galileo, 
Claude, Saurin, Sir Matthew Hale, Jeremy Taj r lor, Luther, Calvin, 
Melarcthon, — and, indeed, all the standard Protestant authors. 

Touching the liberty of the press, a decree of the 10th session of 
the Lateran council A. D. 1215, even Leo X. presiding expresses the 
Roman Catholic views of that chief root of the tree of liberty. The 
decree of the Lateran council was sanctioned by Trent and is now the 
orthodox faith of Rome. 

" By order of the holy council, we, in fine, ordain and decree, that no person 
shah presume to print, cr cause to be printed, any book or other writing whatso- 
ever, either in our city (Rome) or in any other cities and dioceses, unless it shall 
first have been carefully examined, if in this city, by our Vicar and the master of 
the holy palace, or if in other cities and dioceses, by the bishop or his deputy, 
with the inquisitor of heretical pravity for the diocese, in which the said impres- 
sion is about to be made ; and unless also it shall have received, under their own 
hand, their written approval, given without price and without delay. Whoso- 
ever shall presume to do otherwise, besides the loss of the books, which shall 
be publicly burned, shall be bound by the sentence of excommunication." 
Caranza, p. 670. 

The council of Trent has also confirmed the doctrine of Leo X. 
and his Lateran council of 1515. Their first rule concerning pro- 
scribed books is : All books condemned by the supreme pontiffs, or gen- 
eral councils before the year 1515 and not comprised in the present index 
are condemned" The creed of this said council of Trent moreover 
compels every Roman Catholic " to receive undoubtedly, all things 
delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons, and general councils 
and particularly by the Holy council of Trent*" 

This church is as much opposed to the freedom of the press and 
free discussion, and the circulation of the bible, as ever she was ; but 
she has to yield a little to that irresistible innovator, called custom. 
Still however a Roman bishop cannot, as a good and liege subject of 
the pope, but oppose, freedom of thought, speech and action in all 
matters religious. Listen to the following little bull of the bishop 
of New York, published the other day against free discussion. 

In this document the bishop writes, in his address to the editor of the " Truth 
Teller," — " Sir, I consider it my duty to request you to publish the following 
copy of my letter to the editor of the " Catholic Diary," in order to obviate as 
soon as possible, the mischief which such a Society, if countenanced, might pro- 
duce. You know my opposition to controversial disputes on religion, particular- 
ly in debating societies or newspapers." 

From the letter alluded to, we extract the following : 

"To the Editor of the Catholic Diary :— 

In the Catholic Diary of Saturday last, October 1, I find a notice from you, of 
a Society, calling itself the ]N"ew-York Catholic Society, for the promotion of 
religious knowledge. Of the existence of that Society, I was utterly ignorant, 
and feel surprised that you, who ought to know better, would think of encour- 
aging and drawing public attention to such a society, without first ascertaining 
the sentiments of yourOrdinarv on so important a subject. The Church wisely 
2 c 2 "42 



330 DEBATE ON THE 

ordains that nothing of the nature of this society can be established without the 
approbation of the Bishop of the Diocese, where it is meant to introduce it, and 
that permitted, it should be governed by such rules and regulations as to him may 
seem proper, for it obviously partakes of the nature of a Theological school. 
Far be it from me to impede the progress of religious knowledge ; nothing could 
be more dear to my heart than to encourage whatever contributes effectually to 
its promotion ; but placed as I am, as a sentinel over the sacred ark of religion, 
it is my imperative duty to prevent it from being touched by profane or unprac- 
tised hands. 

So far from viewing this society in the light you see it, it is my decided con- 
viction that it ought not to be sanctioned by me ; how can it be supposed that 
young men, whose education is chiefly mercantile or mechanical, can come with 
sufficient preparation to the discussion of a question that requires vast erudition, 
with a degree of research, which they cannot possess ; you cannot be ignorant 
of the severe mental discipline to which students are subjected in our Theologi- 
cal Seminaries, before they are allowed to commence the study of theology. 
You know also that this study is regulated by experienced and able professors, 
that young men are not allowed to grope their way with only their own feeble 
light, through the dark mazes of deceitful cavil, and infidel sophistry. 

The members of this society, who thirst so much for religious knowledge, can 
read our elementary works, and also, the masterly productions of Milner, Fletch- 
er, Bossuet's history of the Variations, lately printed, and others, where they 
are sure to find the tenets of our faith explained with a precision and elegance 
that cannot fail to satisfy the sincere inquirer after truth. The precision of 
ideas, and elegance of expression in the imparting of religious knowledge, their 
preamble sets forth to be the main objects of this society, and it covers the desire 
and intention of acquiring that species of tact and dexterity in theological de- 
bate, which would enable them to follow into the arena the fanatics of the 
day. All this I must condemn as well as a publication of the crude essays of 
tyros among us. Let us dispute less and practice more. 

The church in the most positive manner prohibits all laymen from entering 
into dispute on points of religion with sectarians, •• inhibemus," says Pope Alex- 
ander IV., "ne unquam Laicae Personam liceat publice vel private de fide Catholi- 
ca disputare ; qui vere contradicerit, Excommunicationis laqueo innodetur."* 
Had you recollected this sentence, I am sure you would be far from calling on 
the Catholic young men of this city to become members of a debating society 
on religious subjects, open to so many serious objections. 

" f John, Bishop of New- York." 

After having read you a bishop's bull against " The New York 
Catholic society for the promotion of religious knowledge," I will, 
while on this subject, read you also a bishop's curse against a refrac- 
tory priest in Philadelphia. I quote it from one of the News-papers 
of that day. It happened some twelve or fifteen years ago. I have 
several such cases in the books around me : but they are some two or 
three centuries old, and in foreign countries ; and therefore, I select this 
modern one which is almost a copy of them, because a little acclimated. 

\_Froin a Philadelphia Paper.'] We have at length obtained a correct copy 
of the excommunication of W illiam Hogan, Pastor of St. Mary's Church, of this 
city. It is as follows: 

By the authority of God Almighty, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the 
undefUed Virgin Mary, mother and patroness of our Savior, and of all celes- 
tial virtues, Angels, Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, Powers, Cherubims and 
Seraphims; and of all the Holy Patriarchs, Prophets, and of all the Apostles and 
Evangelists of the Holy Innocents, who, in the sight of the Holy Lamb are 
found worthy to sing the new song of the Holy Martyrs and Holy Confessors, 
and of all the Holy Virgins, and of all Saints, together with the Holy Elect of 
God — may he, William Hogan, be damned. 

We excommunicate and anathematize him, and from the threshold of the Holy 
Church of God Almighty, we sequester him, that he may be tormented, disposed 

* The English of which Bull is :— " The Church prohibits laymen, either publicly or 
privately, from arg&ing on subjects appertaining to tbe Catholic faith, and whosoever shall 
violate this prohibition, let him be bound with the cord cf Excommunication.*' 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 331 

and be delivered over with Athan and Abiram,and with those who say unto the 
Lord, " depart from us for we desire none of thy ways ;" as a fire is quenched with 
water, so let the light of him be put out forevermore, unless it shall repent him, 
and make satisfaction. Amen! 

May the Father, who created man, curse him! May the Son, who suffered for 
us, curse him! May the Holy Ghost, who suffered for us in baptism, curse him! 
May the Holy Cross which Christ for our salvation, triumphing over his enemies, 
ascended, curse him ! 

May the Holy and Eternal Virgin Mary, mother of God, curse him ! May St. Mi- 
chael, the Advocate of the Holy Souls, curse him, May all the angels, principali- 
ties, and powers, and all heavenly armies, curse him! 

May the praiseworthy multitude of Patriarchs, and Prophets, curse him! 

May St. John the Precursor, and St. John the Baptist, and St. Peter, and St. 
Paul, and St. Andrew, and all other of Christ's Apostles together, curse him ! and 
may the rest of our Disciples and Evangelists, who by their preaching converted 
the universe, and the holy and wonderful company of Martyrs and Confessor, 
who by their holy works are found pleasing to God Almighty. May the holy 
choir of the Holy Virgins, who for the honor of Christ have despised the things 
of the world, damn him! May all the saints from the beginning of the world 
to everlasting ages, who are found to be beloved of God, damn him! 

May he be damned wherever he be, whether in the house or in the stable, the 
garden or the field, or the highways; or in the woods, or in the waters, or in the 
church; may he be cursed in living and in dying! 

May he be cursed in eating and in drinking, in being hungry, in being thirsty, 
in fasting, in sleeping, in slumbering, and in sitting, in living, in working, in 
resting and blood letting! 

May he be cursed in all the faculties of his body. 

May he be cursed inwardly and outwardly; may he be cursed in his brains 
and in his vertex, in his temples, in his eye-brows, in his cheeks, in his jawbones, 
in his nostrils, in his teeth and grinders, hx his lips, in his throat, in his shoulders, 
in his arms, in his fingers. 

May he be damned in his mouth, in his breasts, in his heart and purtenance, 
down to the very stomach ! 

May he be cursed in his reins and in his groins; in his thighs, in his genitals 
and in his hips, and his knees, his legs and feet, and toe nails! 

May he be cursed in all his joints, and articulation of the members; from the 
crown of his head to the sole of his feet, may there be no soundness. 

May the Son of the living God, with all the glory of his majesty, curse him! 
And may heaven with all the powers that move therein, rise up against him and 
curse and damn him; unless he repent and make satisfaction! 

Amen. So be it. Be it so. Amen. 

Ridiculous as this may appear — laughable or profane ; it is never- 
theless, but the echo of one of the one hundred anathemas com- 
manded in the council of Trent — one of the greater excommunications 
due to an obstinate heretic. 

As still more indicative of the present views and feelings of the 
Roman see, on the subject of civil and religious liberty, I shall give 
you a few more extracts. I had laid off several modern documents 
of much point, and bearing on this proposition; but unfortunately, 
they were misplaced in my library, and I find them missing among the 
books I have brought with me. I hold in my hand, however, a little 
work in which I find some of them. This little volume containing 
" Dr. Beecher's Plea for the West," ought to be in every family, and 
read by every adult in the great valley, who feels any interest in the 
preservation of our free and happy institutions. I wish I had time to 
read much of it. I can only read a few passages of the dccumentar\ r 
data which it contains : 

I am about to read from Gregory XVI. the present successor of Pe- 
ter, under date of 1832, the present faith of Roman Catholics on the 
subject of conscience, and liberty of the press. 

"from this polluted fountain of indifference, flows that absurd and erroneous 



832 DEBATE ON THE 

doctrine, or rather raving 1 , in favor and defence of 4 liberty of conscience/ for 
which most pestilential error, the course is opened for that entire and wild lib- 
erty of opinion, which is every where attempting the overthrow of religious and 
civil institutions; and which the unblushing impudence of some has held forth 
as an advantage to religion. Hence that pest, of all others most to be dreaded 
in a state, unbridled lib erty of opinion, licentiousness of speech, and lust of no- 
velty, which, according to the experience of all ages, portend the downfall of 
the most powerful and flourishing empires. "Hither tends that worst and ne- 
ver sufficiently to be execrated and detested LIBERTY OF THE PRESS for the dif- 
fusion of all manner of writings, which some so loudly contend for, and so ac- 
tively promote." p. 121. 

This so fresh from Rome, stamped with the seal of infallibility, 
without another word, sustains that specification in my proposition 
relating to the anti- American spirit and genius of the grand elements 
of popery. 

But continues he on the subject of unlicensed books : 

44 No means must be here omitted, says Clement XIII., our predecessor of 
happy memory, in the Encj^clical Letter on the proscription of bad books — 'no 
means must be here omitted,'' as the extremity of the case calls for all our exer- 
tions, to exterminate the fatal pest which spreads through so many works; nor 
can the materials of error be otherwise destroyed than by the flames, which con- 
sume the depraved elements of the evil." 

The secretary of the court of Vienna and counsellor of legation — I 
mean Frederick Schlegel, who, in 1828, lectured on the philosophy 
of history in favor of monarchy and popery — one supreme bishop, and 
one supreme monarch — who was one of the Austrian cabinet, the con- 
fidential counsellor of Prince Metternich — whose policy and opinions 
opened the way for Austrian efforts on the foundation of St. Leopold, 
to add America to the pope's dominions — I say, of this great man and 
his opinions, the author of a foreign conspiracy, as quoted by Doctoi 
Beecher, thus speaks : 

44 In the year 1828 the celebrated Frederick Schlegel, one of the most dis- 
tinguished literary men of Europe, delivered lectures at Vienna, on the philoso- 
phy of history, (which have not been translated into English) a great object of 
which is to show the mutual support which popery and monarchy derive from 
each other. He commends the two systems in connexion as deserving of uni- 
versal reception. He attempts to prove that the sciences, and arts, and all the 
pursuits of man, as an intellectual being, are best promoted under this perfect 
system of church and state: a pope at the head of the former; an emperor at the 
head of the latter. He contrasts with this, the system of Protestantism; repre- 
sents Protestantism as the enemy of good government, as the ally of republican- 
ism, as the parent of the distresses of Europe, as the cause of all the disorders 
with which legitimate governments are afflicted. In the close of lecture 17th, 
Vol. II. p. 286, he thus speaks of this country: The TRUE nursery of all 
these destructive principles, the revolutionary schoolf or France and the rest of 
Europe, has been North America. Thence the evil has spread over many other 
lands, either by natural contagion, or by arbitrary communication. lb. p. 122, 
123. 

Such are the popular views of our institutions in the best and purest 
church district in the world : and the emigrants of that country with 
those opinions are daily crowding to our shores, and filling up this 
immense valley. These are they who are taught to execrate the lib- 
erty of the press, and to consider liberty of conscience pestilential er- 
ror, and that a spiritual monarch, and a political emperor are the very 
paragon of all excellence in church and state. Is this compatible with 
the genius of our institutions ? Are not such views and reasonings, 
positively subversive of them ? 

Let me observe from that book of Fessenden's of which my oppo- 
nent seemed to know so much yesterday : but the author of which he 



ROMAN CATnOLIC RELIGION. 333 

cannot now name, as I believe, (if he can, however, he may tell us 
something about him) — I say from the Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge, and from some other documents before me, I would wish 
to read a few statements, to show that this said Roman Catholic In- 
stitution, chameleon like, first accommodates itself to the customs of 
every country, and seems to inhale and exhale the popular atmosphere 
untij|it reaches its end ; (for well the Jesuit knows the means may be 
infinitely various, while the end is one and immutable,) and so soon as 
it gains the fulcrum of popular opinion and the lever of the majority, 
it builds up an empire, after the model of the Prince Metternich. This 
has hitherto been its history, in every climate, and country, and age. 
A single example of this policy, taken from the Encyclopedia, must 
suffice : 

" Various attempts have been made to bring this church under the papal yoke; 
but without success. The Portuguese having- opened a passage into Abyssinia in 
the fifteenth century, an emissary was sent to extend the influence and authority 
of the Roman pontiff, clothed with the title of patriarch of the Abyssinians. The 
same important commission was afterwards given to several Jesuits, when some 
circumstances seemed to promise them a successful and happy ministry; but the 
Abyssinians stood so firm to the faith of their ancestors, that towards the close of 
the sixteenth century the Jesuits had lost nearly all hope in that quarter. 

About the beginning of the seventeenth century the Portuguese fesuits renew- 
ed the mission to Abyssinia, when the emperor created one of them patriarch; 
and not only swore allegiance to the Roman pontiff, but also obliged his subjects 
to forsake the rites and tenets of their ancestors, and to embrace the doctrine and 
worship of the Romish church. At length the emperor became so exasperated 
at the arrogant and violent proceedings of the patriarch in subverting the es- 
tablished customs of the empire, for the purpose of confirming the pope's au- 
thority, especially in imposing celibacy on some, and requiring divorce of others, 
who had married more than one wife, that he annulled the orders formerly given 
in favor of popery, banished the missionaries out of his dominions, and treated 
with the utmost severity all who had any connexion with the undertaking. From 
this period the very name of Rome, its religion, and its pontiff, have all along 
been objects of peculiar aversion among the Abyssinians." — Encyc. Relig. 
Knowl. p. 22. 

Thus have the Jesuits done in every country, and this will they do 
— first ingratiate themselves with the people, and when they think 
they are secure of their object, they will proceed to subvert the gov- 
ernment : for they are sworn and sold to the pope forever. 

The gentleman says, We are both foreigners ; indicating that we 
have equal rights and privileges. I did not use that term in an invi- 
dious sense, when speaking of my willingness to receive foreigners. 
Nor do I oppose the principles of my opponent, because of their hos- 
tility to Protestants only : but because of their hostility to Roman 
Catholics. It is from my views of the political and religious bear- 
ings, the temporal and the eternal consequences of the system, that 1 
expose and oppose it. As a philanthropist, I am opposed to the papal 
empire, whether at home or abroad — -in Europe or America. 

But although politically considered, in one sense, we both may be 
called foreigners ; yet, we are not foreigners in the same sense. I 
claim a very intimate relation with the Protestant family. I am one 
of that family. It was then my family, that first settled this country. 
The bishop's family settled Roman Catholic America. He is a for- 
eigner here, as I would be a foreigner in Mexico or South America. I 
belong to the persecuted — he to the persecutors of that family. 

In the next place, I never took but one oath of allegiance. I never 
vowed to support but one political constitution. My opponent first 



334 DEBATE ON THE 

swore to America and then to Rome. He is bound to a foreign prince : 
I am not. If that prince should reward him for any service with a 
Cardinal's cap, he might be commanded away to Rome next week. 

Bishop Purcell. No, I will not leave this country. 

Mr. Campbell. The gentleman is under the u Holy Lord the 
pope." I am not a foreigner in this sense. 

But still better, I am the father of a family : my children are native 
Americans : and through these I am more a kin to the great Ameri- 
can family than he ever can be. Without perjury or apostacy from 
his office, he can never have a wife, nor family. He is a stranger to 
those near and holy relations. He has no country — no home, He 
lives and he must die under the command, of foreign superiors; and 
they may, by authority or promotion, remove him to Europe or Asia at 
pleasure. For these and other reasons I am identified with Protestant 
America, and claim a relation here to which his heart shall ever be a 
stranger. — [Time expired.] 

Half past 10 o'clock, A. M, 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

Another instance of the unfairness with which Catholic principles 
are represented : another occasion for a holy triumph ! 

That Rhemish Testament, from which the gentleman has just now 
read, was never sanctioned by the Catholic church. It was published 
by a caucus of parsons in New York, (whose names are prefixed to it,) 
for the express purpose of vilifying the faith, and outraging the feel- 
ings of Catholics ! And this is called a Catholic bible ! Good God ! 
whither has justice fled 1 Archbishop Murray, of Dublin, has lately, 
in the most solemn manner, condemned these notes. They are not to 
be found in the Catholic bible, used in this or in any other country. I 
am laboring to inspire my opponent with sentiments of self-respect ; 
and assure him anew, that " evil communication corrupts good man- 
ners" The occasion called for original documents, candid statements, 
and reputable authorities ; but, instead of these, the public are mocked 
by my friend with spurious, garbled extracts, which a dignified con- 
troversialist would have treated with contempt. We repudiate the 
notes, which Protestants have appended, for us, to this bible. 

Mr. Campbell. — Produce another. 

Bishop Pubcell. — I will. Behold it. Here is the bible to be 
found in every book-store, where Catholic works are for sale. Here 
is Luke, chap. ix. 55 ! Not a word of it there ! (Holds it opened, 
towards the audience, and towards Mr. Campbell.) 

You perceive, that I have granted my opponent, all the extra time 
he chose to occupy, to explain away, if he could, the mis-translation 
(to call it by the very mildest name) of Liguori ; and he has just left 
it where he found it, in the mire of infamy ! The edition which I ex- 
hibit, was published in the very year and the very place with the edi- 
tion, from which Mr. Smith pretends to have quoted. You have 
heard Mr. Kinmont. 

The gentleman has cited the words of Christ, " Do this in commem- 
oration of me," against the real presence. This is all I wanted, to 
complete my argument. Here is the answer : 

"After haviogproposed the sentiments of the church upon these words," this is 
my body" we must tell what she thinks of these others, which Christ added : ■« do 
this in memory of me." It is clear that the intention of the Son of God is to 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 335 

oblige us by these words to remember the death which he suffered for our sakes: 
and St. Paul concludes, from these same words, that we announce, in this myste- 
ry, the death of the Lord. But it must not be imagined that this remembrance 
of his death, excludes the real presence of his body; on the contrary, by only 
considering what has been just now explained, it will fully appear that this com- 
memoration is founded upon the real presence. For as the Jews, in eating their 
peace offerings, remembered that they had been sacrificed for them, so we, in 
eating the flesh of Jesus Christ, our victim, should remember that he had been 
immolated for us. It is therefore this same flesh eaten by the faithful, which not 
only awakes in us the memory of his immolation, but which confirms to us the 
truth of it. And far from being able to say that this solemn commemoration 
which Jesus Christ orders us to make, excludes the presence of the flesh, it is 
visible, on the contrary, that this tender recollection, which he wills we should 
have of him, in the holy communion, as immolated for us, is founded upon the 
real receiving of this same flesh; it being surely impossible to forget, that it is for 
us he hath given his body in sacrifice, when we see that he gives us still every 
day this victim for our food." 

I now come to the subject of purgatory, which my friend calls the 
lever of the pope, to raise the world. I should be glad to see the 
pope raise the world in any way. If he has not the power to raise 
mortals to the skies, he, at least, wants the will to pull men or angels 
down. The doctrine of purgatory can be proved by a few plain texts. 
The first is from 2d Machabees, xii. 42; where we read, that the val- 
iant Machabeus sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem, 
for sacrifice, to be offered for the souls of the dead. " // is, therefore, 
says the scripture, a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead, 
that they may be loosed from their sins." 

My friend will say, the book of Machabees is not canonical. But, 
is it not, as Du Pin would say, very ill done of him, to reject a book 
of scripture, because it pinches him. This is a fine way of confuting 
Catholics : to mutilate the scripture when it favors our doctrine ; to 
believe our enemies, when they misrepresent it; and to attribute to, 
and force upon us, doctrines which we do not profess. 

The books of the Machabees are to be found in the Codex Alexan- 
drinus, and in all the approved bibles of the Catholic church, from the 
beginning. Why tear them, at this late day, from the canon? Be- 
sides, they are, at least, authentic history, and, as such, faithful rec- 
ords of the belief of the only people who, at the time when they were 
written, professed the true faith. 

Jesus Christ says, that there is a blasphemy against the Spirit; 
which is a sin that will not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in 
that which is to come. (Matt. xii. 32.) These words clearly imply 
that some sins will be forgiven in the world to come. Where 1 Not 
in heaven, which " nothing defiled can enter;" not in hell, for out of 
hell there is no redemption.. What is that place, called Abraham's 
bosom, on which Lazarus reposed, until heaven was opened to the 
souls of men, by the death of Jesus Christ 1 Was it heaven, or hell, 
or that intermediate place or state, which Catholics call by the name 
of purgatory 1 It is necessarily the latter : apart from the suffering of 
sense by purifying fire, it would be a state of mental or spiritual suf- 
fering : as it was one of separation from God, whose beauty the soul, 
released from the prison of the body, and the darkness of sin and ig- 
norance, so clearly discerns, and so ardently desires to enjoy. The 
Savior tells us to be reconciled quickly with our adversary, while we 
are in the way : lest we be delivered over to the judge, and cast into 
prison, whence we shall not be released, until we shall have paid the 



336 DEBATE ON THE 

last farthing. (Matt. v. 26.) What prison is this! What place of 
sorrowful detention on the way to heavenly glory ? Neither heaven, 
nor the abode of everlasting torments : consequently, purgatory. 

" Christ died for our sins," says St. Peter, (1st Epist. iii. 18,) " be- 
ing put to death in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit: in which also 
coming, he preached to those spirits that were in prison." This is the 
place, of which it is said, in the apostles' creed, "He descended into 
hell " which was surely not the hell of the damned, but that tempo- 
rary hell, or hades, or purgatory, to whose inmates he announced the 
joyful tidings of their deliverance, where the first and the second 
Adam met, the type and reality. What is the meaning of the univer- 
sally prevalent practice, of which St. Paul speaks, of performing 
pious works, called baptisms for the dead : " Else what shall they do 
who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all. Why are they 
then baptized for them . 2 " (1st Cor. xv. 29.) 

" Hence, the council of Trent teaches: "That there is a purgatory, and that 
the souls detained there, are helped by the prayers of the faithful, and particu- 
larly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar." 

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. 
Augustine, and several other ancient fathers and writers, demonstrate, that the 
doctrine of the church was always, and is now the same, as that which was de- 
fined by the council of Trent, with respect both to prayers for the dead, and an 
intermediate state, which we call purgatory. How express is the authority of 
the last named father, where he says: "through the prayers and sacrifices ofthe 
church and alms-deeds, God deals more mercifully with the departed than their 
sins deserve." Serm. 172. Enchirid. cap. 109, 110. 

St. Chrysostom, who flourished within three hundred years of the age of the 
apostles, and must be admitted as an unexceptionable witness of their doctrine 
and practice, writes as follows: "It was not without good reason ordained by 
the apostles, that mention should be made of the dead in the tremendous mys- 
teries, because they knew well that these would receive great benefit from it." 
In Cap. 1. Philip. Horn. 3. Tertullian, who lived in the age next to that of the 
apostles, speaking of a pious widow, says: " She prays for the soul of her hus- 
band, and begs refreshment for him." L. De Monogam. c. 10. St. Cyprian, 
who lived in the following age, says: " It is one thing to be waiting for pardon; 
another to attain to glory : one thing to be sent to prison, not to go from thence 
till the last farthing is paid; another to receive immediately the reward of faith 
and virtue: one thing to suffer lengthened torments for sin, and to be chastised 
and purified for a long time in that fire; another to have cleansed away all sin 
by suffering." S. Cypr. L. 4. Ep. 2. 

The doctrine of the oriental churches agrees with that of the Catholic church, 
in the only two points defined by her, namely, as to there being a middle state, 
which we call purgatory, and as to the souls, detained in it, being helped by the 
prayers of the living faithful. True it is, they do not generally believe, that 
these souls are punished by a material fire; but neither does the Catholic church 
require a belief of this opinion. On some occasions, Luther admits of purgatory, 
as an article founded on scripture. Melancthon confesses that the ancients pray- 
ed for the dead, and says that the Lutherans do not find fault with it. Calvin 
intimates, that the souls of all the just are detained in Abraham's bosom until the 
day of judgment. In the first liturgy of the church of England, there is an ex- 
press prayer for the departed, that "God would grant them mercy and everlast- 
ing peace." Collier's Eccl. Hist. Vol. II. p. 257. 

Bishops Andrews, Usher, Montague, Taylor, Forbes, Sheldon, Barrow of St. 
Asaph's, and Blandford, all believed that the dead ought to be prayed for. To 
these, I may add, the religious Dr. Johnson, whose published Meditations prove, 
that he constantly prayea for his deceased wife." 

The Universal ists make hell a purgatory. 

The notion, that this doctrine fills the pope's coffers with gold, is 
too ridiculous to be refuted! Every Catholic knows its absurdity. 
As to the intention of the priest, about which the gentleman has found 



R03IAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 337 

so much to say, that is no difficulty. How do we-judge of the inten- 
tion 1 Simply, by the act, the surest evidence of its existence. Can 
we ask if a man has any intention to eat his dinner, when wo see him, 
sit down to table, take his knife and fork, use them, and eat till he is 
filled; so when we see the priest does what every priest does, and 
the faithful people know that he ought to do, we have the best evi- 
dence of his intention. Besides, what motive could he have for such 
a gratuitous violation of the law of God and profanation of a sacra- 
ment. Nemo repente pessimus is an old and a true maxim. He would 
fall into other excesses, first, and be suspended — God will not aban- 
don his church ; and the sincere christian will always be rewarded by 
him, according to his deserts. No man goes suddenly, &c. see Secreta 
Monita. It was placed invidiously among the rubbish by the enemies 
of the Jesuits, if found amid the ruins of their house, as the whole 
society repudiated it. 

Every learned and sound critic, who is at all honorable, denounces 
the imposition — It is an old trick. 

Ovid in his 13th book, verse 59, 60, suggests the idea, in speak- 
ing of Ulysses' treachery, when he first had gold hid in the tent of. 
Palamedes and then denounced him for having been bribed by the 
enemies of Greece. 

4i Fictumque probavit 
" Crimen, et ostendit quod jam prasfoderat aurum." 

Shall I invent calumnies, when run out of proof of any man's dishon- 
esty 1 God forbid ! What virtuous and immaculate family may not be 
thus assailed 1 And the more virtuous and honorable they are, the 
more will they be disconcerted and overwhelmed, for the moment ; 
but the more complete will be their own vindication and their slander- 
ers' disgrace in the end. 

The gentleman cannot get over what he said of Washington and 
our Revolutionary heroes, " the fatal shaft is sticking in his side." 

God has given to the people, neither too much, nor too little power. 
He has given them no spiritual authority; for as Jesus Christ said to 
his apostles, so may the priest say to his flock : " You have not cho- 
sen me." " No one durst assume the ofiice of priest, but he that is call- 
ed to it, as Aaron was" — and he was not called by the people. In 
the Catholic church we solemnly appeal to the people for testimony 
for, or against, a candidate for holy orders. God has given the peo- 
ple reasonable power, in temporal matters, and revolutions have too 
often shown their evils and calamities, in the most horrid and brutal 
excesses and the loss of innumerable lives. This is an awful penalty 
for the rash exercise of temporal power on the part of the people. Our 
own revolution was, perhaps, the calmest, the most temperate, the 
least abused for evil purposes by wicked man, because we had a 
Washington and kindred spirits to direct the storm. These, my wor- 
thy friend calls perjurers ! As God has restricted the people, he has 
also restricted their rulers, in their exercise of power. How many 
terrible lessons have not kings been taught, for its abuse. Why can- 
not nations unite to select a common umpire ; to whom all disputes 
should be referred, and thus the crimes of kings, and revolution, 
with all its accompanying horrors, by the people, extinguished in the 
bud. 

I do not undertake to defend the popes in their use of the deposing 
power — and were my voice, at this moment, ringing ia the Vatican, 
2D 43 



338 DEBATE ON THE 

instead of the Baptist church, Sycamore street, Cincinnati, I should 
not be reproved. There are in the religious, as well as in the spiri 
tual world, two forces, the centripetal, and the centrifugal. The see 
of Rome is as the sun and centre of the system, to which all the pla- 
nets, revolving in beauteous harmony, tend. We bless, we love, we seek 
with ardor, by a kind of religious instinct, strong as the laws of gravita- 
tion, this common centre, which gives us all, our proper impetus and 
coherency. But like the planets, we are not absorbed by it. We 
know its excellence, its usefulness, its destination, its limits. 

Now, to show you what our sentiments are, with regard to the temr 
poral power of the pope, here is a standard work, the identical text- 
book of theology, which I studied in Paris many years ago. The au- 
thor is still living, and instead of being rebuked for what I am going 
to say, he has, on the contrary, been made bishop of Maus, in France. 
His name is Bouvier, and he is as pious a christian as he is a sound 
divine. I read you evidence from scripture, tradition and reason, in 
favor of the doctrine which is the burden of the proposition, viz. that 
" the pope has no right, direct, or indirect, by any divine commission, 
to the temporalities of kings or other Christians." When was the 
deposing power first claimed by the pope 1 Ecclesiastical history 
answers, in the 10th century. Then by the rule which I have alrea- 
dy laid down, it is no part of Catholic doctrine. It came a thousand 
years too late. 

" Proposition. That the Roman Pontiff does not possess, by divine right, any 
power, either direct or indirect, over the temporalities of kings, or other chris- 
tians." This proposition is proved 1st, from the sacred scripture: "As the Fa- 
ther sent me, I also send you, (John xx. 21.) The Son of man hath not where 
to lay his head, (Mat. viii. 20.) Who hath made me a judge, or a divider over 
you? 1 ' (Luke xii. 14.) Hence we may reason thus. The sovereign Pontiff can 
nave no authority over the temporal goods of men by divine right, unless it be 
granted to him by Christ, but he has received no such power from Christ, for 
Christ gave to no man a power, which, he himself, when on earth, did not pos- 
sess; but Christ when on earth possessed no such power, relating to temporal mat- 
ters, as appears both from his poverty, and from these words of his, " who hath 
made me a judge or a divider over you. 1 '' Therefore the Roman Pontiff does not 
possess, by divine authority, any power, &c. 

Besides, Christ expressly declared that he was a king, but at the same time, he 
positively denied that his kingdom was of this world, (John xviii. 36.) For this 
purpose I came into the world, he says, that I might bear testimony to the truth: 
in another place he ordered to give to Ccesar the things that belong to C&sar, 
(Mat. xxii. 21.) By a miracle, he caused the stater to be found in the mouth of a 
fish, that the tribute might be paid for himself and Peter, (Matt. xvii. 27;) and 
surely he could not shew, in more express terms, that he did not wish to exer- 
cise any temporal authority. Furthermore, when he sent his apostles, he, by no 
means, spoke to them, concerning temporal affairs, or any political authority, 
but only of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the power of binding and 
loosing; he ordered that, going through the entire world, they would teach 
these things which he commanded them; he announced to them many tribula 
tions of every sort, and even death; he commanded them, to advise and reprove 
those, who transgress, but that they should not punish them, unless by spiritual 
pains: If he ivill not hear the church, says he, let him be to thee, as the heathen 
and the publican, (Matt, xviii, 17.): he that believeth not, shall be condemned, 
(Mark xvi. 16.) The apostles, in like manner, far from exercising any tempo- 
ral power, on the contrary, strongly recommended obedience and respect to all 
Pagan princes and persecutors, and rulers sent by them. 

It can be proved, 2nd. from tradition. We would be tedious, were we to re- 
hearse all the testimonies of Fathers, Doctors and chief bishops, who by their 
word and example clearly taught, that the civil power was entirely indepen- 
dent of the ecclesiastical. 

Tertullian in his Apologetic, chap. 30, says: "They, (the christians) know, 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 339 

who hath given power to emperors they know that it was God, alone, in 

whose power they are, to whom, they are second, and after whom they are first 
....... .an emperor has his authority, from him by whom he was created man, 

before being; emperor. He receives power from him, from whom also he receiv- 
ed the breath of life We pray for all emperors." All christians, imbued with 

this doctrine, opposed the arms of patience alone, to the most unjust and 
most cruel tortures, for more than three hundred years. 

Osius, bishop of Cordova, writes thus to the emperor Constantius, who favor- 
ed the Arians. " Do you not interfere with ecclesiastical matters," as already 
quoted. 

Pope Gelasius, in his epistle 8th to Anastasius, a violent enemy of Catholics, 
says, " There are two things, O emperor Augustus, by which principally, this 
world is governed, the sacred authority of the popes, and the authority of kings. 
(Labbe torn. 4. page 1122.) This pope, therefore, considered that each power 
was independent of the other. 

It can be proved, 3d. By theological reasoning. 1. That opinion ought to be 
rejected, which was entirely unheard of during the ten first ages; but that opin- 
ion which holds that the chief bishop has any just right even indirect, over the 
temporal possessions of princes, or other christians, was, by no means, heard of 
during the ten first ages, to wit, down to the time of Gregory VII. who in the year 
1080, attempted to depose Henry IV. and disturbed the peace of the entire world, 
by the assertion of this novel right. Therefore that opinion should be rejected, &c. 

2. That opinion should be entirely rejected which would occasion most 
grievous evils, but the opinion which we oppose, gives, &c. 1. It renders harmo- 
ny between the priesthood, and the sovereign power, impossible. 2. It would 
prevent infidel princes from embracing the christian religion, and heretics from 
returning to the true church. 3. It would afford a necessary occasion for con- 
tinual wars, if it were practised, which, experience has already too clearly shewn. 
Therefore, it should be entirely rejected, &c. &c. &c. 

Now see here the scholastic method of proving propositions, and 
an admirable one it is. We say 1st, scripture teaches it, — 2nd, anti- 
quity corroborates it, — 3d, reason confirms it. That is the method 
we follow, in all our schools. This is the solid, and irrefutable man- 
ner in which this proposition is laid down and established. Does this 
look like submitting to the dictation of the pope in temporal matters 1 
Did the English Catholics obey the pretended absolution bull ] Did 
not Catholics under arms, and with* arms, as in the case of Julius II. 
resist their acknowledged, and in his proper sphere, respected Pon- 
tiff] Did they not tie his hands while they kissed his feet? 

Waddington tells us that when Louis XII. of France quarreled 
with the pope, he called a council of bishops at Tours, and proposed 
the question, whether he could detain the pope, as his prisoner, on an 
occasion, which he described. They gave an affirmative answer. 
This, in addition to what I have said, shows how the distinction of 
power, and of rights, was understood at that period, and every epoch, 
back to the apostolic ages. 

My friend asks for a disclaimer of these pretensions, on the part 
of the pope. 

Mr. Campbell. — Not by the pope, but by the councils. 

Bishop Purcell. — -The general councils never made the recogni 
tion of this power, an article of faith; why, then, should they dis- 
claim it? 

Here is what pope Innocent III. said. His account of this affair 
is very curious. It is, indeed, a strong disclaimer, and every word 
deserves to be maturely weighed. 

Cum rex superiorem in temporalibus minime recognoscat, sine juris alterius 
laesionein eo se jurisdictioni nostras subjicere potuit, in quo videretur aliquibus, 
quod perseipsum, non tanquam pater cum filiis, sed tanquam princeps cum sub- 
ditis potuit dispensare. Regi igitur gratiam fecimus requisiti: — quod non solum 



340 DEBATE ON THE 

in Ecclesiae patrimonio, super quo plenam in temporalibus gerimus potestatem, 
verum etiam in aliis regionibus, certis causisinspectis, temporalemjurisdictionem 
casualiter exercemus. Non quod alieno juri praejudicare velimus, vel potestatem 
nobis indebitam usurpare, cum non ignoramus Christum in evangelio respondisse; 
redite, quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari, et quae sunt Dei, Deo. Propter quod postula- 
tus uthaereditatem divideret inter duos : quis, inquit, constituit mejudicem inter 
vos? Sed quia in Deuteronomio contineter, si difficile et ambiguum apud te 
judicium esse perspexeris, Surge et ascende ad locum, quern eligit Dominus 
Deus tuus, &c. Liber V. Epistl2. Innocent III. 

Since the King by no means recognizes a superior in temporal authority, he 
could submit to our jurisdiction without infringing upon the right of another, 
in which it seems to some, that he could dispense, not as a father with his children ; 
but as a prince with his subjects ; therefore we granted the King what was re- 
quisite, because we not only exercise a temporal power, in certain cases, in the 
patrimony of the church, over which we act with full authority in temporalities, 
but also in other districts, certain matters being considered on : Not that w T e 
wish to determine prematurely of another's right, or usurp a power not due to 
us : since we are not ignorant of what Christ has said in the gospel. On account 
of which he was asked to divide an inheritance between two, who, says lie, has 
appointed me judge between ye ? But that it is written in Deuteronomy, if 
you find a difficult and doubtful case, rise and repair to the place, which the 
Lord your God has chosen, &c. B. V. E. 12. Innoceutlll. 

Here the pope, himself, quotes scripture and precedent, against 
the assumption of such power. Next — behold the testimony of a 
particular council, the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, of an eminent 
divine, the celebrated Arthur O'Leary, on the matter before us, and 
on persecution for conscience sake. 

The Council of Toledo forbids the use of violence to enforce belief: "Because," 
add the fathers, " God shows mercy to whom he thinks fit ; and hardens whom 
he pleases." " Praecipit sancta synodus neniini deinceps ad credendum rim in- 
ferre. Cui enim Deus vult, miseretur ; et quern vult, indurat."* And the 
council of Lateran, under Pope Alexander the third, acknowledges, that the 
church rejects bloody executions on the score of religion, which proves to dem- 
onstration, that the canon charged to the fourth council of Lateran, under Inno- 
cent the third, in which canon, " the secular powers are addressed to take an 
oath, to exterminate all heretics out of their territories, and in case of refusal, to 
have their subjects absolved from their allegiance, and the lands of the heretics 
to be seized by the Catholics," &c. is spurious. Collyer, the Protestant his- 
torian, in his fifth volume of Ecclesiastical History, acknowledges that it is not 
found in any copy, coeval with the council. Some hundred years after the 
council, it was produced to light by a German. And we know full well, thatat 
that time, several spurious pieces were produced, to serve the purposes of 
rancor. 

Were even such a decree, or any other of a similar nature, genuine, the Cath- 
olics would reject them, without any breach of faith ; because the church has 
no power over life, limb, the rights of sovereigns, the property of individuals, 
or any temporal concern whatsoever. Her bishops, then, whether separately, 
or in a collective body, cannot graft any such power into their spiritual commis- 
sion. They would act in an extrajudicial manner, and beyond the limits of their 
sphere. This I have proved in my remarks on Mr. Wesley's letter, and elsewhere. 

Far from countenancing cruelty, death and oppression, ** the spirit of the 
church was, in such a manner, the spirit of meekness and charity, that she pre- 
vented, as much as in her power, the death, of criminals, and even of her most 
cruel enemies," says Fleury. " You have seen how the lives of the murderers 
of the martyrs of Armenia were saved ; and St. Austin's effort to preserve the 
Donatists, (who had exercised such cruelties against the Catholics) from the 
rigor of the imperial laws. You have seen how much the church detested the 
indiscreet zeal of those bishops, who prosecuted the heresiarch Priscillian to 
death. 

In general, the church saved the lives of all criminals, as far as she had power. 
St. Augustine accounts for this conduct, in his letter to Macedonius, where we 

* Cap. de Judaeis, dist. 45. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 341 

read, that the church wished there were no pains in this life, but of the healing 
kind, to destroy, not man, but sin, and to preserve the sinner from eternal tor 
ments."* If, in after ages, some popes and bishops deviated from this plan of 
meekness and moderation, their conduct should not involve a consequence inju- 
rious to the principles of the Catholic church, which condemns such proceedings. 
The religion of Catholics and Protestants condemns frauds, fornications, drunk- 
enness, revenge, duelling, perjury, &c. Some of their relaxed and impious 
writers have even attempted, not only to palliate, but even to apologize for such 
disorders. The children of the christian religion daily practise them, — is the 
christian religion accountable for the breach of her own laws? 

My friend made some display, on the persecuting canon of the coun- 
cil of Lateran, and yet Collyer, a Protestant historian, in the 5th vo- 
lume of his ecclesiastical history, pronounces it spurious ! He ac- 
knowledges that it is not found in the copy of the decrees coeval with 
the council ; that it was manufactured by the Germans, hundreds of 
years afterwards ; and that there were several spurious documents 
manufactured about the same time. Now hear a distinguished pre- 
late of our church, Dr. England, in his speech before congress, in 
which he leaves nothing important unsaid on this topic. I am happy 
to incorporate his eloquent remarks in this debate. 

" A political difficulty has been sometimes raised here. If this infallible tribu- 
nal which you profess yourselves bound to obey, should command you to over- 
turn our government, and tell you that it is the will of God to have it new model- 
ed, will you be bound to obey? And how then can we consider those men to 
be good citizens, who profess to owe obedience to a foreign authority, to an au- 
thority not recognized in our constitution ; to an authority which has excommu- 
nicated and deposed sovereigns, and which has absolved subjects and citizens 
from their bond of allegiance. 

Our answer to this is extremely simple and very plain, it is, that we would not 
be bound to obey it; that we recognize no such authority. I would not allow 
to the pope or to any bishop of our church, outside this Union, the smallest in- 
terference with the humblest vote at our most insignificant balloting box. He 
has no right to such interference. You must, from the view which I have taken, 
see the plain distinction between spiritual authority, and a right to interfere in 
the regulation of human government or civil concerns. You have in your con- 
stitution wisely kept them distinct and separate. It will be wisdom and prudence 
and safety to continue the separation. Your constitution says that Congress shall 
have no power to restrict the free exercise of religion. Suppose your digni 
fied body to-morrow attempted to restrict me in the exercise of that right; though 
the law, as it would be called, should pass your two houses and obtain the signa- 
ture of the president, I would not obey it, because it would be no law, it would 
be an usurpation: for you cannot make a law in violation of your constitution; 
you have no power in such a case. So, if that tribunal which is established by 
the Creator to testify to me what he has revealed, and to make the necessary 
regulations of discipline for the government of the church, shall presume to go 
beyond that boundary which circumscribes its power, its acts are invalid, my 
rights are not to be destroyed by its usurpation, and there is no principle of my 
creed which prevents my using my natural right of proper resistance to any tyran- 
nical usurpation. You have no power to interfere with my religious rights, the 
tribunal of the church has no power to interfere with my civil rights. It is a 
duty which every good man ought to discharge for his own, and for the public 
benefit, to resist any encroachment upon either. We do not believe that God 
gave to the church any power to interfere with our civil rights or our civil concerns. 
Christ our Lord refused to interfere in the division of the inheritance between two 
brothers, one of whom requested that interference. The civil tribunals of Juclea 
were vested with sufficient authority for that purpose, and he did not transfer it 
to hi s apostles. It must hence be apparent that any idea of the Roman Catholics of 
those republics being in any way under the influence of any foreign ecclesiastical 
power, or indeed of any church authority in the exercise of their civil rights, is 
a serious mistake. There is no class of our fellow citizens more free to think, 

* Fleury, Discours, 2. No. 9. 

2d2 



342 * DEBATE ON THE 

and to act for themselves on the subject of our rights than we are, and I believe 
there is not any portion of the American family more jealous of foreign influence, 
or more ready to resist it. We have brethren of our church in every part of the 
globe, under every form of government. This is a subject upon which each of us 
is free to act as he thinks proper. We know of no tribunal in our church which 
can interfere in our proceedings as citizens. Our ecclesiastical authority existed 
before our constitution, is not affected, by it; there is not in the world a consti- 
tution which it does not precede, with which it could not co-exist; it has seen 
nations perish, dynasties decay, empires prostrate; it has co-existed with all, it 
has survived them all, it is not dependent upon any one of them; they may still 
change, and it will still continue. 

We now come to examine what are called the persecuting laws of our church. 
In the year 1215, at the council of Lateran. certain heresies were condemned 
by the first canon; and amongst other things this canon recites as Catholic faith, 
in opposition to the errors of those whom it condemned, that there was but one 
God the Creator of all things, of spirits as well as bodies; the author of the Old 
Testament and of the Mosaic dispensation, equally as of the New Testament 
and of the Christian dispensation; that he created not only the good angels, 
but also the devil and the bad angels, originally coming good from his hand, and 
becoming wicked by their own malice, &c. In its third canon it excommunicates 
those heretics, and declares them to be separated from the body of the church. 
Then follows a direction, that the heretics so condemned, are to be given up to 
the secular powers, or to their bailiffs, to be duly punished. This direction con- 
tinues to require of all bishops and others having authority, to make due search 
within their several districts for those heretics, and if they will not be induced 
to retract their errors, desires that they should be delivered over to be punished. 
There is an injunction then to all temporal lords to cleanse their dominions by 
exterminating those heretics: and if they will not, within a year from having 
been so admonished by the church, cleanse their lands of this heretical filthy 
they shall be deprived if they have superior lords, and if they be superior lords 
and be negligent, it shall be the duty of the metropolitan and his provincial 
bishops to excommunicate them, and if any one of those lords paramount so ex- 
communicated for this negligence shall continue during twelve months under the 
excommunication, the metropolitan shall certify the same to the pope, who, find- 
ing admonition useless, shall depose this prince, and absolve his subjects from 
their oaths of fealty, and deliver the territory over to Catholics, who having ex- 
terminated the heretics shall remain in peaceable possession. 

This is the most formidable evidence adduced against the position which I 
have laid down, that it is not a doctrine of our church, that we are bound to 
persecute those who differ from us in belief. I trust that I shall not occupy 
very much of your time in showing, that this enactment does not in any way 
weaken that assertion. T shall do so, by satisfying you that this is a special law 
for a particular case; and also by convincing you that it is not a canon of thexhurch 
respecting any of those points in which we admit her infallibility; nor is it a 
canon of the church. 

The doctrines condemned in this first canon originated in Syria, touched lightly 
at the islands of the Archipelago, settled down in Bulgaria, and spread into the 
south of Europe, but were principally received in the vicinity of Albi, in France. 
The persons condemned held the Manichean principle of tnere being two crea- 
tors of the universe; one a good being, the author of the New Testament, the 
creator of good angels, and generally of spiritual essence; the other an evil be- 
ing, the creator of bodies, the author of the Mosaic dispensation, and generally 
of the Old Testament. They stated that marriage was unlawful, and co-opera- 
tion with the principle of evil was criminal. The consequences to society were 
of the very worst description, immoral, dismal, and desolating. The church 
examined the doctrine, condemned it as heretical, and cut off those who held or 
abetted it, from her communion. Here, according to the principles which I have 
maintained before you, her power ended. Beyond this we claim no authority: 
the church, by divine right, we say, infallibly testifies what doctrines Christ has 
revealed, and by the same right, in the same manner, decides that what contra- 
dicts this revelation is erroneous; but she has no divine authority to make a law 
which shall strip of their property, or consign to the executioner, those whom 
she convicts of error. The doctrine of our obligation to submit does not extend 
to force us to- submit to an usurpation; and if the church made a law upon a 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 343 

subject beyond her commission for legislation it would be invalid; there would 
be no proper claim for our obedience: usurpation does not create a right. The 
council could by right make the doctrinal decision; but it had no right to make 
the temporal enactment: and where there exists no right to legislate on one 
side, there is no obligation of obedience on the other. If this was then a canon 
of the church, it was not one in making which she was acting within her consti- 
tutional jurisdiction, it was an usurpation of temporal government, and the doc- 
trine of infallibility does not bear upon it. 

Every document respecting this council, the entire of the evidence respecting 
it, as well as the very mode of framing the enactments, prove that it was a special 
law regarding a particular case. The only persons whose errors were con- 
demned at that council were those whom I have described. The general prin- 
ciple of legal exposition restraining the application of penal enactments must 
here have full weight, and will restrain the application of the penalty to the 
only criminals brought within its view. But the evidence is still more confirmed, 
by the special words of definite meaning, this, and JUth, which were specially 
descriptive of only those persons; the first by its very nature, the second by the 
nature of their crime; and the continued exposition of the enactment restrained 
its application to the special case, though frequently attempts had been made 
by individuals to extend its application, not in virtue of the statute, but in virtue 
of analogy. It would then be improperly forcing its construction to say that its 
operation was to be general, as it evidently was made only for a particular case. 

In viewing the preamble to this council, as well as from our knowledge of 
history, we discover that this was not merely a council of the church, but it was 
also a congress of the civilized world. The state of the times rendered such 
assemblages not only usual but necessary: and each legislative body did its own 
business by its own authority; and very generally the subjects which were de- 
cided upon by one body in one point of view, came under the consideration of 
the other assembly in a different point of view, and their separate decisions were 
engrossed upon a joint record. 

Sometimes they were preserved distinct and separate, but copyists, for their 
own convenience, brought together all the articles regarding the same subject, 
from what source soever they were obtained. Such was precisely the case in 
the instance before us. There were present on this occasion, by themselves or 
by their legates, the king of Sicily, emperor elect of the Romans, the emperor of 
the east, the king of France, the king of England, the king of Arragon, the king 
of Jerusalem, the king of Cyprus, several other kings, and lords paramount, so- 
vereign states, and princes. Several of the bishops were princes or barons. In 
the ecclesiastical council, the third canon terminated exactly in one sentence, 
which was that of the excommunication or separation from the church, of those 
whom the first canon had condemned, whatever name cr names they might as- 
sume; because they had in several places several appellations, and were con- 
tinually dividing on and changing names as they separated. The duty and the 
jurisdiction of the council came to this; and the ancient records give no more 
as the portion of its enactments. But the congress of the temporal powers then 
made the subsequent part as their enactment: and thus this penal and civil re- 
gulation was not an act of the council, but an act of the congress : and it is not 
a canon concerning the doctriiftfcgf the church, nor indeed is it by any means 
a canon, though the copyists have add eel it to the canon as regarding the very 
same subject ; and as confessedly the excommunication in the third canon re- 
garded only the special case of those particular heretics, the addition of the 
penal enactment to this oarticular canon is confirmatory evidence that those 
who added it knew that the penalty in the one case was only co-extensive with 
the excommunication in the other. 

Having thus seen that this canon of the Council of Lateran was not a doctrinal 
decision of our church establishing the doctrine of persecution, and command- 
ing to persecute, but that it was a civil enactment by the temporal power against 
persons whom they looked upon as criminals, it is more the province of the pol- 
itician or of the jurist than of the divine to decide upon its propriety. I may, 
however, be permitted to say that in my opinion the existence of civilized socie- 
ty required its enactment, though no good man can approve of several abuses 
which were committed under the pretext of its execution, nor can any rational 
man pretend that because of the existence of a special law for a particular pur- 



344 DEBATE ON THE 

pose, every case which may be thought analogous to that for which provision 
was made is to be illegally subjected to those provisions. 

We are now arrived at the place where we may easily find the origin and the 
extent of the papal power of deposing sovereigns, and of absolving subjects 
from their oaths of allegiance. To judge properly of facts, we must know their 
special circumstances, not their mere outline. The circumstances of Christen- 
dom were then widely different from those in which we now are placed. Europe 
was then under the feudal system. I have seldom found a writer, not a Catholic, 
who, in treating of that age and that system, has been accurate, and who has not 
done us very serious injustice. But a friend of mine, who is a respectable member 
of your honorable body, has led me to read Hallam's account of it, and I must 
say that I have seldom met with so much candor, and, what I call, so much 
truth. From reading his statement of that system it will be plainly seen that 
there existed amongst the Christian potentates a sort of federation, in which they 
bound themselves by certain regulations, and to the observance of those they 
were held not merely by their oaths but by various penalties, sometimes they 
consented- the penalty should be the loss of their station. It was of course ne- 
cessary to ascertain that the fact existed before its consequences should be declared 
to follow ; it was also necessary to establish some tribunal to examine and to de- 
cide as to the existence of the fact itself, and to proclaim that existence. Amongst 
independent sovereigns there was no superior, and it was natural to fear that 
mutual jealousy would create great difficulty in selecting a chief ; and that what 
originated in concession might afterwards be claimed as a right. They were 
however all members of one church, of which the Pope was the head, and, in 
this respect, their common father : and by universal consent it was regulated 
that he should examine, ascertain the fact, proclaim it, and declare its conse- 
quences. Thus he did in reality possess the power of deposing monarchs, and 
of absolving their subjects from oaths of fealty, but only those monarchs who 
were members of that federation, and in the cases legally provided for, and by 
their concession, not by divine right, and during the term of that federation and 
the existence of his commission. He governed the church by divine right, he 
deposed kings and absolved subjects from their allegiance by human concession. 
I preach the doctrines of my church by divine right, but I preach from this spot 
not by that right but by the permission of others. 

It is not then a doctrine of our church that the pope has been divinely com- 
missioned either to depose kings or to interfere with republics, or to absolve 
the subjects of the former from their allegiance, or interfere with the civil con- 
cerns of the latter. When the persecuted English Catholics, under Elizabeth, 
found the pope making an unfounded claim to this right, and upon the shadow 
of that unfounded right making inroads upon their national independence, by 
declaring who should or who should not be their temporal ruler, they well 
showed now little they regarded his absolving them from their allegiance, for 
they volunteered their services to protect their liberties, which their Catholic 
ancestors had labored to establish. And she well knew that a Catholic might 
safely be entrusted with the admiralty of her fleet, and that her person was se- 
cure amongst her disgraced Catholic nobility and gentry, and their persecuted 
adherents ; although the Court of Rome had issued its bull of absolution, and 
some divines were found who endeavored to prove that what originated in vol- 
untary concession of states and monarchs was derived from divine institution. 
If then Elizabeth, of whose character I would not wish in this place to express 
iny opinion, was safe amidst those whom she persecuted for their faith, even when 
the head of their church absolved them from allegiance, and if at such a moment 
they flocked round her standard to repel Catholic invaders who came with con- 
secrated banners, and that it is admitted on all hands that in so doing they vio 
lated no principle of doctrine or of discipline of their church, as we all avow 
surely America need not fear for the fidelity of her Catholic citizens, whom she 
cherishes and whom she receives to her bosom with»affection and shelters from the 
persecution of others. Neither will any person attempt to establish an analogy be- 
tween our federation and that of feudalism, to argue that the pope can do amongst 
us what he did amongst European potentates under circumstances widely different. 

My worthy, opponent said, that he would only touch on persecution. 
My friends, persecution had marked me for a victim in my native 
land, and forced me to seek an Asylum in America, when I was 
young and friendless ! Persecution is there, in full operation at this 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 345 

very hour. Scarcely a breeze comes across the ocean, without bring- 
ing on its wings, fresh tidings, of blood, shed under Protestant per- 
secution — by ministers of the Protestant faith. 

Widows there kneel in the blood of their own children ; and, because 
excess of grief has made them maniacs, they drink that blood, and 
curse the authors of their misery. Is not this true 1 Does not the 
universe know and shudder at it ] And having been compelled to 
flee from intolerance, having fought against it, must we still see the 
green-eyed monster, trampling upon the vine and fig tree, here, where 
we had hoped to sit down under their shade, in safety, and in peace, 
with our brethren of every denomination'? Must we still fear the 
midnight knock at the door, and the domiciliary visit, by a brutal 
soldiery I Must the perishing orphans see the bread taken out of 
their mouths by rapacious parsons, and their mother's cloak (their 
only covering of a wintry night) distrained, to pay the tithe proctor ? 
Where will you find tyranny like this ] Would this be a better state 
of things, than what we, in this free country enjoy I Bigots would 
blast this glorious prospect. They would proscribe one sect after 
another. The appetite for blood, they have, even now, evinced, and 
we know, when once indulged, how hard it is to sate it ! But I must 
call upon Protestant testimony for the wrongs of Ireland — and I will 
only touch upon the persecution. Taylor, a graduate of Trinity Col- 
lege, in his history of Ireland, says : 

" It would be a mere waste of words to reprobate this iniquitous law, or ra- 
ther this violation of all law, human and divine. No Irish Protestant can pe- 
ruse its enactments without a blush for the shame thus brought on his religion, 
when it was thus virtually declared that the reformed system should owe its 
strength and security, not to the purity of its principles, not to the excellence 
of its doctrines, but to robbery and oppression, to dissention between father and 
child, to stimulating one neighbor to seize the fruits of another's industry, to 
the desecration of a solemn sacrament, by making it a test for office. How can we 
be surprised that the reformed religion is unpopular in Ireland, when by this 
and similar laws, a Protestant legislature virtually declared that Protestantism 
could not be secure unless it entered into alliance with Belial, Mammon and 
Moloch?" Hist, of Ireland, By W. C. Taylor, Esq. A. B. of Trinity college, 
Dublin, page 108. Vol. 2nd. New York edit. 1833. 

Now tell me if the annals of Catholicism can produce any thing 
like a parallel to this ! After enumerating the most tyrannical laws 
that Draco, or Dioclecian ever enacted, can we discover more pro- 
scription — more cruelty 1 

My friends, I do not blame the Protestant religion for this. It is 
the spirit of the country and government ; and the shame is, that 
when Catholic governments have ceased to persecute, Protestant ones 
continue to do so. 

My friends, were I to consult my own feelings, I should be better 
pleased to draw a veil over these horrors ; but my opponent made al- 
lusions to the inquisition, as an argument that, if ever the Catholics 
became the most numerous, they would make it a part of their system 
to persecute ; as if the same argument, if argument it can be called, 
would not be equally strong against all the leading churches of Pro- 
testantism ; and if the gentleman makes any further extracts, I will 
meet them just in the same way, and condemn both Catholics and 
Protestants, for that by which they are alike disgraced. Now, as 
he brings the account of the inquisition before us, and proves it to be 
the most bloody tyranny, setting aside all forms of legal procedure 
&c, I will refer you to Hume's history of England, for an inquisi- 

44 



346 DEBATE ON THE 

lion equally terrible, and more unjust, under Protestant England— 
the famous S tar-Chamber, where, upon the least suspicion, without 
proof, the officer was sent to the nouses of the most distinguished 
men, nay even to their beds, and forced them in the dead of night 
to a prison. Sir Thomas Moore, bishop Fisher, the aged countess of 
Salisbury, &c. are instances with which I could fill up some horrific 
pages. 

As to oaths ; the gentleman says that I have taken two which are 
incompatible with each other. This is not so. My ecclesiastical oath 
is of a purely spiritual nature. The only oath of allegiance, of a 
temporal character, which I have ever taken, was to the United States. 
These two oaths cannot be incompatible. The heavens and the earth 
are not more different from one another, than they are. They cannot 
possibly interfere with each other. Therefore the bishop's oath is, by 
no means, what the gentleman has represented it. The pope has ab- 
jured the odious sense which the document is made to bear. It is no 
sin surely, to swear that we will not kill the pope. Would my friend 
make it such ] ' Saving my order' is a clause which the gentleman 
should have expatiated upon, and our order is forbidden, under the 
most awful penalties, to shed any one's blood, but our own, if we are 
called upon to suffer martyrdom, and that of the mystic victim of 
the altar, as a propitiation for our own sins, and those of the entire 
world. Persequar was never intended to mean persecute. It alludes 
to moral, not brute force. The weapons of our warfare are spiritual, 
not carnal. The Latin word means only to follow up with persever- 
ing argument, and persuasion, as I am doing this day. Before I took 
that oath, I read it again and again, and took the decisions of the 
bishops of America upon it. We all agreed that there was nothing 
in it contrary to the allegiance due to the United States. 

My friend spoke of Catholics violating their oaths. I would ask 
if there is a nation that has given such splendid testimony of respect 
for oaths, as Catholic Ireland 1 For 300 years of the bloodiest per- 
secution that was ever inflicted, they have steadily refused to take 
an oath which every thing but conscience urged them to take. 

My friends, all this ought to be remembered, not for the gratifica- 
tion of hostile feelings, but for justice, and as a fair offset, to balance 
the Spanish Inquisition, which is all the while not Catholic. — [Time 
expired.] 

Half past 11 o'clock, A. M. 
Mr. Campbell rises— 

We have, my friends, had matter of debate thrown before us during 
the last hour, that would require seven days more to discuss. An 
ocean instead of a harbor opens to our view. Good policy, however ! 
Instead of concentrating on the main points, which, above all others, 
it behooved the bishop to clear up, if, indeed, he had any hopes of being 
able to defend himself, he gives us a little of every thing, great and 
small ; present, past, and future. Thirty minutes would not be enough 
for me to single out, arrange, and state the contrary propositions, to 
cover all his last premises. As the gentleman knows what he can best 
defend, and what he cannot, and as his time is at his own disposal, I 
have no right to complain. I proceed, therefore, not to recapitulate 
my argument, as I expected we both would have done in our last 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 347 

speeches : but to brush the dust off a few of the prominent points, 
crowded together in his last effort. 

The bishop's denial of the genuineness of this Rhemish Testament, 
at this time, is exceedingly unfair; and still worse, from whatever mo- 
tive it may proceed, it is wholly reckless of history and fact. I say it 
is unfair ; because, when near the beginning of the debate, I showed 
him the Testament, and challenged him to object to it if he had any- 
thing against it, that it might be settled forthwith, he was silent. I 
went even farther — I asked him for another copy, or edition of it more 
correct, if he had one : he was still silent. And now, at the close, he 
has held up the Doua) r Bible, without these notes, published long 
since, not pretending to be the same work, either as to time, place, or 
circumstance, as proof that this edition of the New Testament is not 
authentic! But my audience, and the public, will appreciate all this. 
I do assert, then, and my assertion.has as much logic in it as his, that 
the gentleman has misrepresented this affair — that this book is truly 
what its title page declares it ; and that both the text and the notes are 
as truly Roman Catholic as the Douay Bible. Hear the title; 

"The New Testament of our Lord aad Savior Jesus Christ; translated out 
of the Latin Vulgate, diligently compared with the original Greek, and first pub- 
lished by the English college of Rheim3, Anno 1582: with the Original Preface, 
Arguments, and Tables, Marginal Notes and Annotations." 

Again: hear the recommendation of this work by "ministers of the 
gospel, and other learned persons of various denominations." They 
say, "This edition contains all the notes, of the original edition as pub- 
lished at Rheims, A. D. 1582." Not a new and amended impression, 
suppressing the more offensive comments, but the original itself. This 
recommendation is signed by more than a hundred gentlemen of as 
much literary and religious reputation as can be found in the U. States. 
Once more : 

Certificate. — We have compared this New York edition of the Rhemish 
Testament and Annotations with the first publication of that volume, which was 
issued at Rheims in 1582; and after examination, we do hereby certify, that the 
present re-print is an exact and faithful copy of the original work, without 
abridgment or addition, except that the Latin of a few phrases which were trans- 
lated by the annotators, and some unimportant expletive words were undesign- 
edly omitted. The orthography also has been modernized. 

John Breckinridge. 

William C. Brownlee, D. D. 

Thomas De Witt, D. D. 

Duncan Dunbar. 

Archibald Maclay. 

William Patton. 
To all these certificates there are not less than one hundred and thirty 
names. But the gentleman's calling this authority in question, is in 
good keeping with his whole course. There is no authority against 
the church of Rome — neither Protestant nor Catholic to be believed, 
if they say any thing against her. But infidels, and such Protestants 
as flatter her in her assumptions, are canonical as holy writ ! If the 
bishop is to be believed, all Protestant historians, theologians, authors, 
&c. opposed to the Roman assumptions, are liars. In proof and de- 
monstration of the super-excellency of Protestant principles, and of the 
debasing, degrading, and enslaving principles of the papacy, I intended 
to have drawn a full comparison between the Protestant and Catholic 
parts of Ireland; the Protestant and Catholic countries of Switzer- 
land — between Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Protestant England— 



348 DEBATE ON THE 

between the United States and the South American States — between 
Protestant and Roman Catholic America. But I cannot now attempt 
it; and much do I regret it : for such a comparison fairly drawn, would 
amount to the most satisfactory demonstration of the political, literary, 
and moral tendencies of the two systems. Plain, as proof from holy 
writ, it would thus have appeared, that this superstition, like the touch 
of the torpedo, lays a benumbing, paralizing, and blighting hand on 
all within its grasp. 

The gentleman is yet on indulgences and purgatory, when he ought, 
in reply to my last speech, to have endeavored, if possible^ ..relieve 
his cause from imputations the most serious and the most revolting to 
American ears. I have not thought it important to descant upon the 
tariff of sins, or to give a tabular view of the prices at which certain 
sins were rated in gold and silver in the market of indulgences. Nor 
have I at all inquired why, in this tax-book, for killing a layman a less 
sum is asked than for simply striking a priest, without breaking the 
skin. These questions, though capable of solution from authentic docu- 
ments, are the dreams of purgatory I deem so inferior, and so un- 
blushingly barefaced impositions, that I prefer matters of more grave 
concern to this community for the time allotted us. That indulgences 
are bona fide licenses to commit sin, and not simple absolution for past 
sins, is as susceptible of proof as that Martin Luther began the Protes- 
tant reformation. 

The gentleman will not defend the popes, he says, in their attempts 
to exercise supreme political power; but asks, "Did the kings of the 
nations ever acquiesce in it'?" That kings for centuries received and 
held their crowns at the sovereign pleasure of the popes, is just as ob- 
vious a historic fact, as that there were popes at all. Sometimes, in- 
deed, the kings fought against these assumptions, and sometimes they 
acquiesced. But the ready subordination of the state to the church 
evinced in the magistrates executing the anathemas of the church, in 
putting to death those denoted as heretics by the church, shows in what 
a state of subserviency and pliancy political princes were held by the 
popes. That is just the very terror of church and state — the very 
supremacy which we fear, and which is so antipodal to our institutions. 

It is putting heretics or reformers to death, and supporting a human 
priesthood by the state according to the dictation of the church, which 
makes that union, or subserviency, so wicked and odious in our estima- 
tion. And will the gentleman ask, what Roman Catholic state, nation, 
or prince, ever did such a thing 1 ! 

In his counter displays of Roman Catholic doctrine, my friend has 
not given you the trans-Alpine doctrine. The Cis-Alpine, or Gallican 
doctors, are not of the old Roman Catholic school. They are almost 
semi-protestant on those very points on which he has introduced them. 
They are no evidence against the standard doctrines of that church 
on these questions. The French Catholics began to stand aloof from 
the high and haughty pretensions of their trans-montane brethren. 
They are the most liberal portion of the Roman church, and have, con- 
sequently, done more for the promotion of science than all the rest of 
the Catholic world put together. Bishop England gives their views. 

I asked for an authentic disclaimer of the attributes of the Roman 
church, and of those acts and deeds indicative of her tyrannical, op- 
pressive and persecuting spirit which I have detailed. I ask this still ; 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 349 

and while I do it in a tone indicative of that earnestness which the 
occasion requires, I do it in the same benevolence to my opponent and 
his party which I felt and expressed at the beginning of this discus- 
sion. The times and the occasion peremptorily demand it. We know 
what individual priests and bishops have said against popes and coun- 
cils, and their proceedings, and against other parts of that system : but 
these are said for effect ad capiandum vulgus, and will be unsaid by 
the same individuals, or by others, when occasion requires. I have 
brought very serious allegations against the Roman Catholic institu- 
tion, an^ authorities for them — all of them authentic, and most of them 
never ; uted by my opponent. He disclaims these principles, acts, 
and movements : but he disproves not one of them. Nor would the 
disclaiming of them by all the bishops in America, disprove one of 
them. The council of Trent has ordained and enjoined all these prin- 
ciples of implicit and blind obedience, intolerance, proscription, and 
persecution. No council has since met, and no power but a general 
council can define a single article of faith, or rule of manners, accord- 
ing to the declarations of my antagonist. Indeed, the doctrine of the 
council of Trent must remain immutable and infallible while time en- 
dures, according to him : for no other general council can possibly 
contravene it ; and, therefore, while the Roman church exists, she 
must be, what I have shown she was, beforehand since the council of 
Trent. 

This cou cil met in a boisterous time. They met to oppose and put 
down Protestantism. They knew the allegations of Protestants 
against their doctrine. If then, they could have abandoned those prin- 
ciples for the sake of either reclaiming or defeating the Lutherans, 
that was the time to do it. They sat long enough, and debated with 
zeal enough ; and yet they dare not discuss the papal authority. The 
pope forbade them to debate his office, jurisdiction, or authority, and 
they did not attempt it. The pope signed their decrees, and all that was 
done there was done irrevocably and forever. The disavowal or the 
disclaiming of any priest or bishop in the Roman Catholic church, is 
not worth more, and has no more authority, than mine. It is, therefore, 
of no value for my learned opponent, or any American prelate to say 
that he does not approve this or that; or, agree to this or that. They 
must all submit to, and they will all inculcate on all suitable occa- 
sions, every decree of the council of Trent. Thus did the Jesuits in 
Abyssinia. They first explained away every thing: but finally ex- 
plained it back again, and had almost saddled the pope and the coun- 
cil of Trent forever on those unfortunate Abyssinians. 

I could, had I the time now, from that very history of Ireland from 
which the gentleman read you an extract, a copy of which I too have 
lying on the table, — I say, I can from this book show that the ancient 
christian church of Ireland was subjugated to the church of Rome, by 
this very species of rhetoric, and that finally the whole island was 
enslaved to the pope by the same means : for in England, Scotland, 
Wales, and Ireland, there were Christian churches, ages before the 
popes of Rome were born. But by this chamelion attribute of becom- 
ing all things to all men, for a while, she has made all men become 
what she pleases. 

Thus by degrees under this system, the human spirit is broken, de- 
graded and debased* night enstiesj and finally, gross darkness covers 
2 £ 



350 DEBATE ON THE 

the people. Even in Canada since the papacy has gained the ascend- 
ency, laws have been passed in the provincial assemblies, giving to 
school commissioners and grand jurors the privilege of " making their 
mark, instead of writing their names /" Nothing can preserve our re- 
publican institutions but a system of intellectual and moral culture, 
accessible to every child born upon our soil or brought to our shores. 
Unless we thus benevolently co-operate in this great cause of human- 
ity, this last and best hope of the oppressed of all nations will vanish 
from the earth, and a new and ghostly despotism shall arise and ex- 
tend its iron sceptre over this our beloved land. Nothing but intelli- 
gence and virtue universally diffused, can save us from this dread ca- 
tastrophe. In Protestant Prussia, with a Roman Catholic minority, 
they understand so well the importance and utility of education, and 
its power to dissipate the darkness of superstition, always tyrannical, 
that every child is by law compelled to be educated, and that morally 
as well as intellectually. 

There remains an important point or two yet to be noticed. The 
gentleman is exceedingly squeamish in his avowals of this oath, which 
forever binds the Roman priesthood to the court of Rome. He admits, 
however, that after due consultation or meditation had, he took the 
oath, clauses of which constrain him to " increase and advance the 
authority of the pope," and to " persecute and oppose heretics and 
schismatics." He says persequor means not to persecute. 

Bishop Purcell. It means to follow, and nothing more. 

Mr. Campbell. It is a generic term, and means to follow with the 
sword or faggot, or the hand or foot, only in the way of opposition, 
however. Sequor is to follow, but persequor is to follow with ven- 
geance. 

I have learned this morning that it can be proved under oath that all 
the bishops in America have taken this oath ; and that without equiv- 
ocation or mental reservation ; of which fact, however, I was before 
apprised : but the gentleman himself has admitted it, and I pursue it 
no further. I am, however, disappointed, to observe, that he has been 
at no pains to reconcile his allegiance to two governments so singu- 
larly repugnant to each other in all their elements and tendencies. 

My friend fled from persecution in Ireland ! From paying tithes, I 
suppose, according to the Levitical law ! Well, this tithe system is 
a falling concern, and will soon pass away. But is not this his perse- 
cution an ingenious off-set to fifty millions of martyrs sacrificed by 
the papal power?! Some are whispering that this Roman persecu- 
ting spirit is dying away as the tithe system. Let those, however, 
who think so, in addition, to what I have already read from va- 
rious sources, accept a few words from the " Plea for the West"— ~ 
From the 2d. ed. of M. Aignan of the French Academy in Paris, A 
D., 1818. 

" Passing to the 10th article of the Concordat, in which it is said that his Most 
Christian Majesty shall employ, in concert with the Holy Father, all the means 
in his power to cause to cease, as soon as possible, all the disorders and obstacles 
which obstruct the welfare of religion and the execution of the laws of the 
church — were [the Protestants] to ask (although the profuse shedding of their 
blood might have informed them,) What are the laws of the church? The acts 
of Pius VII. himself, and the writings on which the church rests her authority 
would answer, the extermination of heretics, the confiscation of 

THEIR GOODS, AND THEIR PRIVATION OF EVERY CIVIL PRIVILEGE." 

To this the author subjoins a note: "Certain portions of real estate which had 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 351 

belonged to ecclesiastics, had passed into the hands of Protestant princes. Pius VII. 
in 1805, complained of it to his nuncio residing at Vienna; and reminded him that, 
according to the laws of the church, not only could not heretics possess ec- 
clesiastical property, but that also they could not possess any property whatever, 
since the crime of heresy ought to be punished • by the confiscation of goods. 
He added that the subjects of a prince, who is a heretic, should be released from 
every duty to him, freed from all obligation and all homage. 'In truth,' said he, 
1 we have fallen on times so calamitous, and so humiliating to the spouse of Jesus 
Christ, that it is not possible for her to practise, nor expedient to recall so holy 
maxims; and she is forced to interrupt the course of her just severities against 
the enemies of the faith. But if she cannot exercise her right to depose the 
partizansof heresy from their principalities, and declare that they have forfeited 
all their goods; can she ever permit that, to enrich themselves, they should 
despoil her of her own proper dominions? What a subject of derision — would 
she not present to these very heretics and unbelievers, who, while they insulted 
her grief, would say they had discovered the method of rendering her tolerant? 

"The same pontiff in his instructions to his agents in Poland, given in 1808, 
professes this doctrine, that the laws of the church do not recognize any civil 
privileges as belonging to persons not Catholic ; that their marriages are not 
valid; that they can live only in concubinage; that their children, being bas- 
tards, are incapacitated to inherit; that the Catholics themselves are not validly 
married, except they are united according to the rules prescribed by the court of 
Rome; and that, when they are married according to these rules, their marriage 
is valid, had they in other respects infringed all the laws of their country."-— 
Quarterly Register, vol. 3. p. 89. 

Remember then, that according to the acts of Pius VII. the laws of 
the church still command the extermination of heretics — the confiscation 
of their goods, and their deprivation of every privilege — that Protest ant j 
have no privileges ,• and that the present calm is owing, not to a change 
of spirit, but of times : for says the pope : " the times are so calamitous 
— that the church is forced to interrupt the course of her just severities 
against the enemies of the faith !" These are truly calamitous 
times ! ! Alas for prosperous days I 

I am indeed sorry that our debate has been so much out of logical 
order. An issue has never been fairly and fully formed on one of my 
propositions. My friend occupied the ground which he chose. He 
was respondent. How he has responded, it remains for others to 
judge. He has been positive and declamatory enough, and very scru- 
pulous about " mint, anise and cummin :" but how have the great to- 
pics been met? I rejoice, however, that it will go to the public, as it 
was spoken, and that the public will read and judge. 

I have heard a hint that the gentleman is about to disprove the fact 
of the anathema or bishop's curse by introducing Sterne, turning into 
ridicule the curses pronounced centuries before he was born. The 
humor of Sterne found the reality of the curse, or he would not have 
laughed at it. 

The gentleman has now to close the debate. The usages of discus- 
sion forbid the introduction of new matter in the last speech. He will 
probably again tell you of Catholic devotion to American liberty, and 
of his brother soldiers, that fought in the Revolutionary war. For, by 
such arguments he has generally met the decrees of councils, the bulls 
of popes, the records of history, and the precepts of the apostles. But 
before the devotion of a few Roman Catholic soldiers to the cause of 
the Revolution can be accepted as proof of Roman Catholic love of 
either civil or religious liberty, it must be ascertained, whether the 
hatred of Protestant England, rather than the love of rational liberty, 
instigated those soldiers that served during that war. For my part, I 



352 DEBATE ON THE 

incline to the opinion that the hatred of England was at least as strong 
an impulse to their efforts as the love of liberty. — But— [Time ex- 
pired.] 

Twelve o'clock, M, 
Bishop Purcell rises — 

My friends, in order to meet one of the last allegations of the gen- 
tleman, namely, that the Catholic church has a law, making Protest- 
ant children illegitimate ; I know of no law to that effect, which ad- 
mits of the least practical difficulty ; but I will tell you where it is 
still in force, and imposes civil disabilities and disqualifications of the 
most odious character. It is in a Protestant country. And, here, tet 
me say, once for all, that I judge too highly of the character of Scots- 
men and Englishmen, and know too well that they detest these laws 
as much as I do, to mean anything disrespectful to them, when I al- 
lude to the acts of the British government, or the malpractices of in- 
dividuals. Scotland has done much for science. Eagle-like she has 
soared to its sunniest heights. May she battle, like the Bruce, by the 
side of O'Connell, for human rights. But, facts are facts. Now, 
a Unitarian minister, Mr. Dewey, whom I have already quoted, says : 

" The dissenters are demanding to be relieved from their burdens. Petitions 
to parliament, either for an entire abolition of the union between church and 
state, or for an essential modification of that union, have, it is well known, be- 
come matters of almost every day occurrence. There is a determination on this 
point, which must at length succeed; and I must say, indeed, from my own im- 
pressions aboutthe hardships of the case, that if the dissenters — if those whose con- 
sciences and property and personal respectability are alike invaded by the church 
establishment, will not cause (heir voice, and the voice of justice to be heard," they 

deserve to be oppressed If the church endowments were a bequest for the 

benefit of any particular class of christians, it was for the Catholics. The lar- 
gest portion of them were actually Catholic endowments. If it is proper that 
they should be diverted from that original design at all, it ought at least to be 

done in aid and furtherance of the whole religion of the country No man 

I think, can travel through this country without knowing that the dissenters are 
frequently treated in a manner amountingto absolute indignity! As to the in- 
justice of the system, it is well known. The dissenter is excluded from the uni- 
versities. In fact, he can neither be born, nor baptized, nor married, nor buried, 
but under the opprobrium of the law. That is to say, there can be no legal regis- 
tration of his birth ; his baptismal certificate does not entitle him to legal marriage : 
and he can receive neither marriage, nor burial from the hands of his own pastor. 

And now what is alleged in defence of this state of things? No principle or 
pretence of justice that I have ever heard, but only the principle of expedi- 
ency. It is said that monopoly and exclusion here are necessary. It is said that 
religion cannot be supported in dignity and honor, without ample endowments 
and rich benefices." Vol. I. p. 143. 

Such is the state of England in the enlightened nineteenth century, 
and a pretty state it certainly is ! Thus, on incontrovertible testimony, 
that of the nation at large, are monopoly and exclusion necessary to the 
support of a system which Mr. Campbell has solemnly declared to be 
the only bulwark of the Protestant religion ! ! 

My friends, for those tremendous curses which you have heard, and 
at which you have laughed so heartily ! I must spoil or heighten the 
fun by telling you that they are not Catholic curses, nor yet Protes- 
tant curses exactly, but that they are the jeu & esprit of a Protestant 
minister, Lawrence Sterne, all found in this book (exhibiting it,) 
which I have had brought me, this moment, from a book store, written 
by that worthy parson himself, and one of the most grossly obscene 
in the English language ! ! Verily, my opponent has given me, in this 
finale, a measure of revenge which I would not. myself, have asked 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 353 

for. And he had these curses, stowed away for years, on that bit of 
soiled paper, to be produced as the coup de grace to the Catholics, at 
"the close of this debate. I saw these curses, when some waggish 
wight had them published, in Philadelphia ; and the moment he men- 
tioned them, I wrote on my notes, " Sterne," " Tristram Shandy," and 
sent for the book ! Dr. Slop cuts his finger, untying a certain case of 
instruments : he whistles Lillebulero, to ease the pain ; and Uncle 
Toby, or his nephew, with Cervantic gravity, swears by Juno's beard 
to the genuineness of these curses, and hands them to Dr. Slop, to 
read by way of an anodyne ! But, seriously, in the 28th chapter of 
Deuteronomy, are to be found curses, as awful as these here pro- 
nounced. Must we mock God that inspired, or the scripture that re- 
cords them'? Now the bible itself is turned into ridicule by the gentleman. 
Christian charity and common sense, truth and justice, require im- 
peratively, that no one should be condemned without a hearing, or 
charged with holding sentiments which he disavows. Here is the 
fullest, the clearest, the most unequivocal disavowal, of the doctrine 
of the pope's deposing power. The Catholics do not believe that he 
has any such power. We would be among the first to oppose him in 
its exercise ; and we would be neither heretics nor bad Catholics ; and 
we each of us bishops swear the very words of the oath : "JFersequar 
et impugnabo, salvo meo or dine" in the sense specified, which is the 
only true sense, the assumption of any such power by the pope, or the 
pope for the assumption of any such power. For ten centuries this 

POWER WAS NEVER CLAIMED BY ANY POPE. It CAN, THEREFORE, BE NO 

part of Catholic doctrine. It has not gained one foot of land 

FOR THE POPE. It IS NOT ANY WHERE BELIEVED, OR ACTED UPON, IN 

the Catholic church. Nor can it be, at this late day, estab- 
lished, IF ANY MAN COULD BE FOUND MAD ENOUGH TO MAKE THE AT- 
TEMPT. Let these go before the American people, as the real princi- 
ples of Catholics concerning the power of the pope. And if we must 
pronounce a judgment on the past, let it be remembered, that when 
the pope did use this power, it was when appealed to as a common 
father, and in favor of the oppressed ! We should go back, in spirit, 
to former times, when we undertake to judge them. We should un- 
derstand the condition of society at the period ; we should know the 
circumstances, general and particular, which controlled or influenced 
the great events recorded in history. We should not quarrel with our 
ancestors, because they did not possess knowledge which we possess ; 
nor flatter ourselves that w T e are vastly their betters, because of these 
adventitious advantages ; while they manifestly surpass us in others 
of greater value, to the Christian, the moralist, the artist. They had 
the substance of good things : we seem to be content with the shadow 
of them. The very efforts now made by fanatical preachers, and pe- 
titioners to congress, to proscribe Roman Catholics, clearly show that 
we are far behind them in the regard for truth, and the exercise of 
toleration. Let it never be forgotten, what the sect was, of what reli- 
gion the men were, who first petitioned congress, in this free country, to 
restrict, or, to use a more appropriate word, to abolish liberty of conscience, 
andtoform a Christian party in politics. They were not Roman Catholics. 
The Bull of Gregory XVI. censures bad books. He condemns not 
the liberty, but the licentiousness of the press. And is he not right ! 
Can there be a greater corrupter of morals than bad books ] Did not 
2 e 2 45 



354 DEBATE ON THE 

St. Paul burn bad books to the amount of 5000 pieces of silver, as we 
read in Acts xix. 19? Is it not action-able in England and the United 
States to publish books against the existence of God ? You see what 
one-sided views, some would be great men can take, of the doings of 
popes. The gentleman blew up the bible, and all the mysteries of 
Christianity, and himself with them, when he tried to blast the rock 
of Peter; is it wonderful that he should implicate St. Paul, and Eng- 
lish and American common and statute law, when he would blow up 
the good old pope, Gregory XVI. 1 

In a rescript addressed by his holiness Pius VII. to the vicars apos- 
tolic of Great Britain, dated the 8th of April, 1820, his holiness ex- 
horts them to take care that 

" The faithful abstain from reading the wicked books, in which in these calam- 
itous times, our religion is assailed from all sides ; and that they should be strength- 
ened in faith and good works, bj r the reading of pious books, and particularly the 
holy scriptures, in editions approved by the church — you preceding them by word 
and example." "Uta perversorum librorum lectione,quibus,calamitosissimis hisce 
temporibus sancta nostra Religio undique impetitur, abstineant; utpiorum libro- 
rum, praesertim scripturarum sacrarum lectione, in editionibus ab Ecclesia appro- 
batis in fide et in bonis operibus, vobis verbo et exemplopraeuntibus,conforten- 
tur." 

" In the reign of Louis XIV. of France, at the suggestion of Bossuet, bishop of 
Meaux^0,000 copies of the new Testament in the vernacular tongue, were dis- 
tributed in the provinces." See vindication of religious Orders, No. 40, 3d. vol. 

The Index is a book of which I have never had a copy ; and no Ca- 
tholic, that I know of, in the United States, has ever seen it. The 
law of nature is as much of an " Index" as that volume, for it forbids 
us to read bad books which the index-finger of conscience points to 
us as evil, with the word — Beware ! The gentleman greatly mis- 
takes the Catholic doctrine, the morals of Catholics, the politics, the 
intellects of Catholics. I trust, as he becomes more enlightened, he 
will think better of them. I am sure this audience, and the public, 
will. All see by the crowds of Catholics thronging, to the very last 
moment, to this debate, how free and fearless of the investigation of 
their faith they are, and feel. They have had the full benefit of all 
the gentleman's sophistry and extracts; and the effect is infinitely 
better for Catholicism than any sermon that I, or any Catholic bishop 
in the union, has ever preached to them. They see that, with all the 
gentleman's learning and talents, he has utterly failed to establish a 
single one of his propositions. Hence they will be more attached to 
their faith than ever. 

As to the deposing power, I may recall to your recollection the fact 
that five great universities of Europe were consulted by William Pitt, 
and they all, in the most solemn language, reprobated such a doctrine. 
Their decisions may appear in an appendix, if we publish one. I 
have not time to read them now. In Millner's End of controvers)', 
and Charles Butler's memoirs of English, Irish and Scottish Catholics, 
we'll find these matters fairly stated and discussed. 

There is more liberty in Rome than the gentleman gives it credit 
for. There is a Protestant church, even in Rome, where service is 
regularly performed according to the Episcopalian rite. The Jews 
are not any where more charitably treated, than in the eternal city. 
Last year, they presented a splendid copy of the Holy Bible, or some 
other sacred book, to the pope, as a token of their gratitude. 

The gentleman calls the system of tithes a dying system. It has 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 355 

indeed been a dying system. It has slain its thousands, and made 
the condition of the living worse than that of the dead. 

Judge Hall, of this place, has treated the question discussed, more 
learnedly and eloquently than my worthy opponent or myself. I will 
give his remarks the place to which they are so well entitled for 
candor and liberality. 

"This question has become so important in the United States, that it is time to 
begin to inquire into its bearings, and to know whether the public are really in- 
terested in the excitement which has been gotten up with unusual industry, and 
has been kept alive with a pertinacity that has seldom been equaled. For seve- 
ral years past the religious protestant papers of our country, with but few ex 
ceptions, have teemed with virulent attacks against the Catholics, and especially 
with paragraphs charging them substantially with designs hostile to our free in- 
stitutions, and with a systematic opposition to the spread of all free inquiry and 
liberal knowledge. These are grave charges, involving consequences of serious 
import, and such as should not be believed or disbelieved upon mere rumor, or 
permitted to rest upon any vague hypothesis ; because they are of a nature which 
renders them susceptible of proof. The spirit of our institutions requires that 
these questions should be thus examined. We profess to guaranty to every in- 
habitant of our country, certain rights, in the enjoyment of which he shall not 
be molested, except through the instrumentality of a process of law which is 
clearly indicated. Life, liberty, property, reputation, are thus guarded — and 
equally sacred is the right secured to every man, to * worship God according 
to the dictates of his own conscience.' 

But it is idle to talk of these inestimable rights, as having any efficacious ex- 
istence, if the various checks and sanctions, thrown around them by our consti- 
tution and laws, may be evaded, and a lawless majority, with a high hand, ravish 
them by force from a few individuals who may be effectually outlawed by a per- 
verted public opinion, produced by calumny and clamor. It is worse than idle, 
it is wicked, to talk of liberty, while a majority, having no other right than that 
of the strongest, persist in blasting the character of unoffending individuals by 
calumny, and in oppressing them by direct violence upon their persons and 
property, not only without evidence of their delinquency, but against evidence; 
not only without law, but in violation of law — and merely because they belong 
to an unpopular denomination. 

The very fact that the Roman Catholics are, and can be with impunity, thus 
trampled upon, in a country like ours, affords in itself the most conclusive 
evidence of the groundlessness of the fears, which are entertained by some 
respecting them. Without the power to protect themselves, in the enjoyment 
of the ordinary rights of citizenship, and with a current of prejudice setting so 
strongly against them, that they find safety only in bending meekly to the storm, 
how idle, how puerile, how disingenuous is it, to rave as some have done, of the , 
danger of Catholic influence! 

We repeat that this is a question which must rest upon testimony. The 
American people are too intelligent, too just, too magnanimous, to suffer the tem- 
porary delusion by which so many have been blinded, to settle down into a per- 
manent national prejudice, and to oppress one christian denomination at the 
bidding of others without some proof, or some reasonable argument. 

We have not yet seen any evidence in the various publications that have 
reached us, of any unfairness on the part of the Catholics, in the propagation 
of their religious doctrines. If they are active, persevering, and ingenious, in 
their attempts to gain converts, and if they are successful in securing the coun- 
tenance and support of those who maintain the same form of belief in other 
countries, these we imagine, are the legitimate proofs of christian zeal and sin- 
cerity. In relation to protestant sects, they are certainly so estimated; and we 
are yet to learn, why the ordinary laws of evidence are to be set aside in refer- 
ence to this denomination, and why the missionary spirit which is so praisewor- 
thy in others, should be thought so wicked and so dangerous in them. 

Let us inquire into this matter calmly. Why is it that the Catholics are pur- 
sued with such pertinacity, with such vindictiveness, with such ruthless malevo- 
lence? Why cannot their peculiar opinions be opposed by argument, by per- 
suasion, by remonstrance, as one christian sect should oppose each other? We 
speak kindly of the Jew, and even of the heathen ; there are those that love a 



356 DEBATE ON THE 

Negro or a Cherokee even better than their own flesh and blood ; but a Catholic 
is an abomination, for whom there is no law, no charity, no bond of christian 
fraternity. > 

These reflections rise naturally out of the recent proceedings in relation to 
the Roman Catholics. A nunnery has been demolished by an infuriated mob — 
a small community of refined and unprotected females, lawfully and usefully en- 
gaged in the tuition of children, whose parents have voluntarily committed them 
to their care, have been driven from their home — yet the perpetrators have es- 
caped punishment, and the act, if not openly excused, is winked at, by protestant 
christians. The outrage was public, extensive, and undeniable; and a most re- 
spectable committee, who investigated all the facts, have shown that it was un- 
provoked — a mere wanton ebullition of savage malignity. Yet the sympathies 
of a large portion of the protestant community are untouched. 

Ts another instance required, of the pervading character of this prejudice? 
How common has been the expedient, employed by missionaries from the west, 
in the eastern states, of raising money for education or for religion upon the al- 
legation that it was necessary to prevent the ascendency of the catholics. How 
often has it been asserted, throughout the last ten years, that this was the chosen 
field on which the papists had erected their standard, and where the battle must 
be fought for civil and religious liberty. What tales of horror have been poured 
into the ears of the confiding children of the pilgrims — of young men emigrat- 
ing to the west, marrying catholic ladies, and collapsing without a struggle into 
the arms of Romanism — of splendid edifices undermined by profound dungeons, 
prepared for the reception of heretic republicans — of boxes of firearms secretly 
transported into hidden receptacles, in the very bosoms of our flourishing cities, 
of vast and widely ramified European conspiracies by which Irish catholics are 
suddenly converted into lovers of monarchy, and obedient instruments of kings! 

A prejudice so indomitable and so blind, could not fail, in an ingenious and en- 
terprising land like ours, to be made the subject of pecuniary speculation ; accord- 
ingly we find such works as the * Master Key to Popery,' * Secrets of Female 
Convents,' and ' Six Months in a Convent,' manufactured with a distinct view 
to making a profit out of this diseased state of the public mind. The abuse of 
the catholics therefore is not merely matter of party rancor, but, is a regular 
trade, and the compilation of anti-catholic books of the character alluded to, has 
become a part of the regular industry of the country, as much as the making of 
nutmegs, or the construction of clocks. 

Philosophy sanctions the belief, that power held by any set of men without 
restraint or competition, is liable to abuse; and history teaches the humiliating 
fact that power thus held has alwavs been abused. To inquire who has been 
the greatest aggressor against the rights of human nature, when all who have 
been tempted have evinced a common propensity to trample upon the laws of 
justice and benevolence, would be an unprofitable procedure. The reformers 
punished heresy by death as well as the catholics; and the murders perpetrated 
by intolerance, in the reign of Elizabeth, were not less atrocious than those 
which occurred under ' the bloody Mary.' We might even come nearer home, 
and point to colonies on our own continent, planted by men professing to have 
fled from religious persecution, who not only excluded from all civil and politi- 
cal rights those who were separated from them by only slight shades of religi- 
ous belief, but persecuted many even to death, for heresy and witchcraft. Yet 
these things are not taken into the calculation, and the catholics are assumed, 
without examination, to be exclusively and especially prone to the sins of op- 
pression and cruelty. 

The French catholics, at a very early period, commenced a system of missions 
for the conversion of the Indians, and were remarkably successful in gaining 
converts, and conciliating the confidence and affections 01 the tribes. While the 
Pequods and other northern tribes were becoming exterminated, or sold into 
slavery, the more fortunate savage of the Mississippi was listening to the pious 
counsels of the catholic missionary. — This is another fact, which deserves to be 
remembered, and which should be weighed in the examination of the testimony. 
It shews that the catholic appetite for cruelty is not quite so keen as is usually- 
imagined, and that they exercised, of choice, an expansive benevolence, at a peri- 
od when protestants, similarly situated, were blood-thirsty and rapacious. 

Advancing a little further in point of time, we find a number of colonies ad- 
vancing rapidly towards prosperity, on our Atlantic sea board. In point of civil 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 357 

government they were somewhat detached, each making its own municipal 
laws, and there being in each a predominance of the influence of one religious 
denomination. We might therefore expect to see the political bias of each sect 
carried out into practice, and it is curious to examine now far such was the fact. 
It is the more curious, because the writers and orators of one branch of this 
family of republics, are in the habit of attributing to their own fathers, the prin- 
ciples of religious and political toleration, which became established throughout 
the whole, and are now the boast and pride of our nation. The impartial record 
of history affords on this subject a proof alike honorable to all, but which re- 
bukes alike the sectional or sectarian vanity of each. New-England was settled 
by English puritans, New- York by Dutch protestants, Pennsylvania by Quakers, 
Maryland by Catholics, Virginia by the Episcopalian adherents of the Stuarts r 
and South Carolina by a mingled population of roundheads and cavaliers from 
England, and of French huguenots — yet the same broad foundations of civil and 
political liberty were laid simultaneously in them all, and the same spirit of re- 
sistance animated each community, when the oppressions of the mother country 
became intolerable. Religious intolerance prevailed in early times only in the 
eastern colonies, but the witchcraft superstition, though most strongly developed 
there, pervaded some other portions of the new settlements. We shall not ampli- 
fy our remarks on this topic; it is enough to say, that if the love of monarchy 
was a component principle of the catholic faith, it was not developed in our 
country when a fair opportunity was offered for its exercise ; and that in the glo- 
rious struggle for liberty, for civil and religious emancipation — when our fathers 
arrayed themselves in defence of the sacred principles involving the whole broad 
ground of contest between liberty and despotism, the catholic and the protestant 
stood side by side on the battle field, and in the council, and pledged to their 
common country, with equal devotedness, their lives, their fortunes, and their sa- 
cred honor. Nor should it be forgotten, that in a conflict thus peculiarly mark- 
ed, a catholic king was our ally, when the most powerful of protestant govern- 
ments was our enemy." 

Now, my friends and fellow citizens, let me have permission to 
close this debate by the language of the illustrious Washington, 
in his answer to the patriotic address of the U. S. Catholics. I dis- 
claim all unkind feelings towards Mr. Campbell or any of his friends, 
and acknowledge my gratitude to him for enabling me to plaee my 
religion, in its proper light, before the public. I also beg leave res- 
pectfully to tender to this audience my thanks for the dignity of their 
deportment during this debate. Instead of quarreling about religion 
we ought to be engaged in our vocation of love and peace, as its 
faithful ministers, and sincere professors. We have all, a great deal 
to do to improve the morals of the age, to elevate the standard of 
literature, to promote by such means as all christians approve, the 
welfare of our common country, and to obtain for our green state, the fer- 
tile and flourishing, Ohio, a distinguished rank for knowledge, virtue 
and patriotism, among her elder and her younger sisters in this fair 
republic. These are legitimate pursuits, alike pleasing to God, and 
useful to man. The world is large enough for us all. Some can, in 
the Abraham and Lot way of settling their difficulties, feed their 
flocks in one field, and some in another ; and, as Joseph said to his 
brethren going home to their father, from Egypt, as we are going to 
one heavenly Father, " see that ye fall not out by the way." (Reads 
from Washington's letter as follows :) 

To the Roman Catholics in the United States of America. 

Gentlemen — While I now receive with much satisfaction your congratulations 
on my being called by an unanimous vote, to the first station in my country, I 
cannot but duly notice your politeness, in offering an apology for the unavoidable 
delay. As that delay has given you an opportunity of realizing, instead of antici- 
pating, the benefits of the general government, you will do me the justice to be- 
lieve, that your testimony of the increase of the public prosperity, enhances th« 



358 DEBATE ON THE 

pleasure, which I should otherwise have experienced from your affectionate ad- 
dress. 

I feel that my conduct, in war and in peace, has met with more general appro- 
bation than could have reasonably been expected ; and I find myself disposed to 
consider that fortunate circumstance, in a great degree, resulting from the able 
support, and extraordinary candor, of my fellow-citizens of all denominations. 

The prospect of national prosperity now before us, is truly animating, and 
ought to excite the exertions of all good men, to establish and secure the happi- 
ness of their country, in the permanent duration of its freedom and indepen- 
dence. America, under the smiles of divine providence, the protection of 
a good government, and the cultivation of manners, morals, and piety, cannot 
fail of attaining an uncommon degree of eminence in literature, commerce, agri- 
culture, improvements at home, and respectability abroad. 

As mankind become more liberal, they will be more apt to allow, that all those 
who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community, are equally entitled 
to the protection of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the 
foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality. And I presume that your 
fellow citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accom- 
plishment of their revolution, and the establishment of their government, or the 
important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman 
Catholic faith is professed. 

I thank you, gentlemen, for your kind concern for me. While my life and 
my health shall continue, in whatever situation I may be, it shall be my con- 
stant endeavor to justify the favorable sentiments which you are pleased to 
express of my conduct. And may the members of your society in America, ani- 
mated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as 
the faithful subjects of our government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity. 

GEORGE WASHINGTON. 
March, 1790, 

[end of the debate.] 



The following are the extracts referred to on page 224 :— 

English Divines. 
" Confession to a priest, the minister of pardon and reconciliation, the curate 
of souls, and the guide of consciences, is of so great use and benefit, to all that 
are heavy laden with their sins, that they who carelessly and causelessly neglect 
it, are neither lovers of the peace of consciences, nor careful for the advantage 
of their souls." (Bp. Jer. Taylor, of the doctrine and practice of repentance, 
chap. x. sec. 4.) " For the publication of our sins to the minister of holy things, 

toutov i%a tov Koyov, ov £%£* K e7riSet^ig ruiv a-w/xxTtx.o)v 7txQwv, said Basil, (Regul. 

Brev. 229,) is just like the manifestation of the diseases of our body to the phys- 
ician for God hath appointed them, as spiritual physicians." (Taylor, ut supra.) 
P. S. It has startled many an honest independent, who by chance has got hold 
of an original work qf sturdy John Calvin, or Martin Luther, when in some well- 
prized "commentaries" some latent passage of " The Institutions," he has en- 
countered sly admissions, well guarded by cautious ' ifs, 1 and left to their own 
fate without defence or apology, yet savoring much of ancient heresy. And 
in the honesty of his ignorance, he has exclaimed, as he returned the dusty 
volume to its shelf — Great Calvin! much learning hath made thee mad. The bi- 
ble, and the bible alone, is the religion of Protestants. Where have been Protes- 
tants as consistent as the Covenanters and the Puritans? Assigning to Rome 
the whole body of christian testimony, experience, and wisdom; outspreading, 
in one hand, the broad banner of private opinion; coolly hanging and burning 
their brother-democrats with the other; extolling Protestantism as the religion 

of the enlightened; fairly proving it the religion of the ignorant And who are 

they that the bigoted " no bigot" points at, " Romanists," " Papishers," " near 
neighbors to the Babylon of abominations!" They are men who have devoted 
their lives to the study of the legitimate authorities of doctrine and rite" 



ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. 



359 



This was exhibited and the names read at the close of debate on 
apostolic succession. 

Tabular view of the order of the Episcopal succession in the prominent (Gen- 
tile) Dioceses mentioned by Eusebius. 

Bishops of Rome. 

Peter and Paul, according to Eusebius, died as martyrs at Rome; after these 
followed, 

1 Linus, 9 Pius, 16 Urbanus, 23XystusorSixtusn, 

2 Anencletus, 10 Anicetus, 17 Pontianus, 24 Dionysjus, 

3 Clement, 11 Soter, 18 Anteros, 25 Felix, 

4 Euarestus, 12 Eleutherus, 19 Fabianus, 26 Eutychianus, 

5 Alexander, 13 Victor, 20 Cornelius, 27 Caius, 

21 Lucius, 28 Marcellinus, 

22 Stephanus, 29 Miltiades. 



6 XystusorSixtus,14 Zephyrinus, 

7 Telesphorus, 15 Callisthus, 



8 Hyginus, 

1 Evodius, 

2 Ignatius, 

3 Heron, 

4 Cornelius, 

5 Eros, 



Bishops of Antioch. 
6 Theophilus, 11 Zebinas, 



7 Maximinus, 

8 Serapion, 

9 Asclepiades, 
10 Philetus, 



12 Babylas, 

13 Fabius, 

14 Demetrianus, 



15 Paul of Samosata. 



16 Domnus, 

17 Timoeus, 

18 Cyrillus, 

19 Tyrannus, 



Bishops of Alexandria. 
The evangelist Mark, established the church there, and after him came, 



1 Annianus, 

2 Avilius, 

3 Cerdo, 

4 Primus, 

5 Justus, 

Thelymedres, 
Heliodorus, 

Theophilus 
Theoctistus, 



6 Eumenes, 

7 Marcus, 

8 Celadion, 

9 Agrippinus, 
10 Julianus, 



11 Demetrius, 

12 Heraclas, 

13 Dionysius, 

14 Maximus, 

15 Theonas, 



Bishops of Laodicea. 
Socrates, Anatolius, 

Eusebius of Alexandria, Stephen, 

Bishops of Cesarea. 
Domnus, Agapius, 

Theotecnus, 



16 Peter, 

17 Achillas, 

18 Alexander, 



Theodotus, 



Eusebius. 



Having revised some three hundred pages of proof of this debate, before I 
left Cincinnati for New Orleans, on the 2nd of March, 1837, I am willing to 
consider and approve the report, as being substantially correct. I have the ut- 
most confidence in the honor and honesty of the publishers, Messrs. J. A. James 
& Co., that the balance of the discussion will be fairly presented to the public. 

•f- JOHN B. PURCELL, Bishop of Cincinnati. 

" ,r Campbell saw and read all the proofs to the end of the debate, but vv A 
jw his certificate of approval to be inserted, onlv it the close of seven pages 
nore of matter prepared by himself. 



E RRATA . 

The following errors escaped the proofreader in the first edition, but were 
afterwards corrected in the plates, and will not appear in any of the following 
editions. 



Page 49. 23d line from top, for " Protestants have all concealed" read " Protes- 
tants have all conceded." 
" 72. 18th line from bottom, for " enlightened," read " unenlightened." 
44 73. 5th line from bottom, for t4 the servant Malchus" read 44 drew the 

sword and." 
" 178. 6th line from top, for 44 unimportant " read 44 important." 



3 CO 



I 

THE DISPUTED PASSAGE OF ST. LIGORL— MR. CAMPBELL'S 
DOCUMENTARY SUBSTANTIATION. 

The reader, who looks back to pages 219,253, will there see with what solemn 
and strong asseverations the Bishop declared that no such passage as that quoted 
from page 294 was ever written by Saint Ligori. 

Mr. Smith, in reply to my letter per Mr. Emmons, wrote as follows — 

44 The obnoxious passage, then, which the Romish Bishop of Cincinnati calls hea- 
ven and earth to witness is not to be found in the works of Ligori, is the following: 

" A Bishop, however poor he may be, cannot appropriate to himself pecuniaiy 
fines, without the licence of the Apostolical See. but he ought to apply them 
to pious uses. Much less can he apply those fines to any thing else but pious 
uses, which the Council of Trent has laid upon non-resident Clergymen, or 
upon those Clergymen who keep Concubines." — Ligor. Ep. Doc. Mor. p. 444. 

This passage, I will now give in the Latin, as it stands on the 444th page of 
the 8th volume of the " Moral, Theology of Alphoksus de Ligorio," from 
whose Work the extract was made. The words are as follows: 

"Mulotas pecuniarias Episcopus sibi addicere non potest, quantumvis pauper 
sit, sine licentia Sedis Apostolicae. [ut ex pluribus argumentis S. Congregat. 
evincitur in Tract. De Syn. Dicec. L. 10. C. 10. N. 2.] Sed debent in usus pios 
expendi. Multo magis non possunt nisi in pios usus applicari ille mujctae, quas 
Tndentinuni hiMix.it Clericis non residentibus. aut concubinariis." — Ligor. Epit. 
Doc. Mor. p. 444. 

The words included in the brackets, were not translated, merely because I 
did not wish to encumber the " Synopsis," (as I have observed in the * 4 1 re- 
FACE OF THE SYNOPSIS,") with too many of the authorities quoted by Ligori. 
I shall now, however, translate the above words in the brackets, much, I know, 
to the discomfiture of his Reverence the Romish Bishop of Cincinnati. The 
words in the brackets, therefore, translated, are as follows : [" as is evident from 
many arguments of the Holy Congregation, in the Treatise respecting the Dio- 
cesan Synods, Book 10, Chapter 10, Number 2."] 

Here we have, not onlv the authority of St. Ligori, but also that of the 
14 Holy Congregation of Rites." 

Since this subject is now to be probed to the bottom, we will also translate 
the contracted words which I transferred into the " Synopsis ," as I found them 
in the original. The words to which I allude are the terminating ones of the 
disputed passage, as follows: — ' 4 Ligor. Ep. Doc. Mor. p. 444." — which, trans- 
lated, stand thus: — "From the Work of Ligori, under the head of 4 An Epitome 
of the Moral Doctrine,' page 444." 

In order to render the testimony still more striking, it is important to observe 
that this " Epitome of the Moral Doctrine," to which Ligori alludes, is an Epi- 
tome compiled by no less a personage than Fope Benedict XIV. as we are in- 
formed by Ligori himself, in the 301st page of the 8th volume of his 4 ' Moral. 
Theology." 

That the previousLatin words are truly and faithfully the words of St. Ligori 
and fairly extracted from 8th volume, p. 444. is duly certified by the following 
learned gentlemen. 

We, the undersigned, have carefully examined the foregoing extracts from 
the Moral Theology of St. Ligori; and having compared them with the original 
Latin copy of that Work, now* before us, we do hereby certify that the said 
extracts are verbatim, truly and correctly given by Mr. Smith. 

In this certificate, we include, particularly, the passage disputed by Bishop 
Purcell, which is contained iu Mr. Smith's "Synopsis," p. 294, par. 7, headed 

4i CONCUF-TNES of the CLERGY." 

DUNCAN DUNBAR, Pastor of the M'Dovrralst. Bapt. Church. 
JVO. KENNADAY. Pastor oj the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
SPENCER II. CONE, Pastor of the Oliver-street Baptist Church. 
SAM'L F. B. MORSE, Prof tyc. in the University of the City of New York, 
WM. GREEV, Jr. Deacon in the 6th Free Cong. Church. JV.' Y. 
C. G. F1VNEY, Pastor of the Church in the Broadway Tabernacle. 
New -York, Feb'y 23, 1837. 
On receiving the above communication from Mr. Smith I asked from bishop 
Purcell the loan of the works of St. Ligori. He politely complied with my re- 
quest. Turning to the page, 444, volume 8, I found every word in his own 
edition as above reported. I carried it and the Synopsis of Mr. Smith to our 
mutual friend Mr. Kinmont, to whom it was now my time to appeal. Mr. Kin- 
mont read both the original and the translation: and then certified as follows. 

The above (version of Smith p. 294) I regard to be a faithful translation of 
the passage as itstands in the 8th volume of Ligori page 444. 

Cincinnati, Feb'y 3, 1837, ALEXANDER KlNMONT. 



"3/3 U 






> 3sb>8> I2>S33§2> 33DD2> j 

5>3X}I2> -EST 
J>xGI3ffi> ED 

3353)S>. :TX 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



iSD31ll.Q3I5S3 USD 



2© HES I 
330 EE>^ 



3B>DSD 









